1976-10-26

Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the critical economic situation in the Yukon resulting from the shutdown of the Cyprus-Anvil Mine at Faro, and in view of the fact that the shutdown is a result of the AIB administrator Donald Tansley rolling back the decision of AIB from 14 per cent to 8 per cent, and in view of the fact that the shutdown is having disastrous effects on the economy of the Yukon, I move, seconded by the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development take immediate steps through consultations with the Minister of Finance and representatives of the Yukon legislative assembly to resolve the problem.


Mr. Speaker:: Standing Order 43 requires unanimous consent for presentation of the motion to the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who had such remarkable success yesterday, the following motion.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Edward Broadbent: Listen, fellows, before you say no.
That this House welcomes the return of the Prime Minister from Japan-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


John Edward Broadbent: -and urges him and his government to introduce, on a priority basis, legislation to deal with the urgent problem of unemployment which Wood-Gundy has just forecast will average 8.1 per cent in 1977.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The provisions of Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HOUSING
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that current interest rates on the purchase of single family dwellings discourage any prospective buyer who is aware of the total amount-interest and capital combined- he would have to repay over 30 or 40 years and that the combined capital and interest to be repaid each month is an amount the average Canadian worker cannot afford, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the House deal as early as possible with this most important issue of Financing single family home construction, to turn what is now a luxury into a commodity within the reach of all Canadians concerned in this motion.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my motion under Standing Order 43 reads as follows. The announced reduction of CN staff in the province of Newfoundland is not only evidence of CN determination to
October 26, 1976

I have heard of turning the other cheek and was also taught to love my enemies, but I was not taught to provide the knife with which my enemy would cut my throat. The approach to publicly financed broadcasting in Canada must be re-evaluated in the light of the vastly improved communications facilities in this country.
If the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is to remain free of interference at the federal political level, it must be equally free of union interference and of political party interference by infiltration. I suggest that henceforth publicly financed television and radio broadcasting that uses in excess of $400 million of taxpayers' moneys each year restrict itself to cultural and educational programming, plus factual news reporting only. Otherwise the price will be freedom of the majority.


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has dealt with many matters with which I would not have time to deal before the adjournment. Let me try to deal with the hottest ones, for example, the case of Lise Payette who is a candidate in the Quebec provincial election. I am informed that according to CBC program policy when broadcast personalities capture nominations as candidates in an election they are obliged to withdraw immediately from the programs of the corporation. Pursuant to this policy the contract with Lise Payette has been terminated and the program has been cancelled. Now, what if Lise Payette is not elected? In this case I am informed that, given the mandate of the CBC which is to promote national unity and reinforce the Canadian cultural fabric as espoused in the broadcasting act, it would be difficult to
Adjournment Debate
envisage the possible return of Lise Payette to CBC employment.
With regard to Lloyd Robertson it may be that one of the reasons he left the CBC is that as a CBC announcer he wanted to be able to gather new's and was unable to do so because news gathering is within the jurisdiction of the CBC newsmen's union. Questions of union jurisdiction as between announcers and newsmen in the CBC have nothing to do, however, with questions of freedom of information.
So far as the question of the use of pre-recorded announcements by Premier Bourassa is concerned, I think this has been put in proper context by a reply of CBC President Johnson to Mr. Ben Payer, President of the Liberal Party in Quebec. In his reply Mr. Johnson pointed out the full responsibility for its program content assumed by the CBC under the provisions of the Broadcasting Act, and the fact that accordingly the CBC must exercise editorial judgment to the best of its ability and with complete freedom. He added that in his opinion broadcasting organizations retained the prerogative to make use of such a recorded message or not to do so, or to present it in whole or in part in accordance with their editorial evaluation. The CBC's language networks each broadcast a short extract from Premier Bourassa's message, while the French network declined to do so, nevertheless presenting all the essential details of this important event. Thus each network simply exercised freely its prerogative and journalistic responsibilities without any constraints or external influences.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

October 26, 1976
Adjournment Debate
additional 200 employees at the Sydney Steel Corporation. As the minister mentioned yesterday, the announcement of this lay-off came at a time when all available funds have been allocated to the 264 constituencies. It will be readily understood that program funds, as initially allocated, are currently being committed and the figure earmarked for each constituency cannot be adjusted.
I can well understand the plight of the workers affected by the current lay-off at the Sydney Steel Corporation. The employment situation has suffered sudden and severe deterioration in several other areas of the country as well. It is hoped that these problems will be somewhat alleviated in the near future by the re-allocation of those funds which will remain unutilized once the current LIP assessment-approval phase is completed.
It should be noted, for the time being, that $379,000 has been allocated to the constituency of Cape Breton-East Richmond under the 1976-77 program, and these funds will be committed to projects which will in the very near future create jobs in the constituency.
The hon. member alleges a 65 per cent discrepancy. Although different sources can produce different estimates, the minister very much doubts that his figures can be accurately compared with the ones used in the formula across Canada. If he will supply the figures he uses, along with a clear statement of the time period and the geographic area they will cover, I will ask the department's statisticians to review them and analyse any differences. Should the figures of the department's estimates used for the allocation prove to be wrong, they will, of course, be changed.
May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that although the formula used in the distribution of funds by constituency has its limitations, it is the best we have been able to devise. Each year efforts are made to render it more objective and accurate. This year the weighing factor and the ruling that no constituency would receive less than one third of last year's allocation were introduced to this end. If the estimates of unemployment were made on some other basis, the results would no doubt be different from place to place. No change in the methodology for estimating unemployment could, however, change the total amount of money available for distribution. We cannot use one system of measurement here and another system there. What we have done is to use the best estimates, consistently across provinces and constituencies, in order to produce the fairest and most accurate set of results that we can.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION-ALLEGATION OF BIAS IN PROGRAMMING-SUGGESTED INVESTIGATION
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday of last week I proposed the following motion:
That the government cause to be brought immediately before the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, the responsible officers of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the purpose of explaining the circumstances leading to the recent affront to the premier of the province of Quebec, the response of the officers to that action and the intentions of Radio 
Canada to prevent similar future interference with free communication in publicly financed television programming.
I followed this up with a question to the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts). I asked:
Is the minister aware of the often expressed criticism of bias in the programming of the publicly financed Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? Has he investigated the veracity of one of the reasons given by Lloyd Robertson for his recent resignation, and how does he reconcile this with this week's well publicised action of Radio Canada in Quebec?
The answer of the Secretary of State suggested that he did not understand the basic thrust of the question.
What is at issue is the integrity of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the very independence or so-called independence of which successive ministers have been boasting, or were these same ministers just looking for an excuse to get themselves off the hook? Were they looking for a means by which they could explain to the public why, though the public is financing the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to the extent of over $400 million per annum, the public is to have no say through its elected representatives in just how these moneys are to be spent? The so-called independence of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is too often the answer given by the responsible ministers to stop the questioning of politicians.
Also is it wise to spend $400 million per annum for a service used by less than 10 per cent of the population? To what extent is Canadian culture influenced or affected by publicly financed programs that are not being received by an apparently indifferent population?
It was of considerable concern to me to read one of the reasons why Lloyd Robertson has moved from CBC to CTV. Union regulations restricted his reporting freedom. If we are so up-tight about political interference, should we not be equally concerned with all freedom restrictions?
It is argued by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, when it gives broad coverage to the separatist P.Q. party, that the suppression of news and the suppression of news commentary are a threat to democracy in a free society. Why then is the same freedom not accorded to those who present the news? If it was bad for Lloyd Robertson to comment on the publicly financed outlets, are we now being brainwashed by his newfound freedom on the independent network?
I will also ask to what extent the taxpayer should finance the separatist point of view, which seeks the very destruction of the institution which gives the P.Q. party its principal source of publicity? The huge salary paid to Lise Payette helps her to attempt to destroy the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as we know it today. For certain, if her party were to gain power she would not be without a job in a new Quebec government sponsored television outlet. Lise Payette is certainly a very capable performer. But then she has no worries. If she loses the election, she returns to her big salary paid by all Canadian taxpayers.


MANPOWER-LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR EXTRA FUNDS FOR CAPE BRETON AREA
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in reference to the questions I raised in the House yesterday concerning the rationing of Local Initiative Project funds in the constituencies of Cape Breton Island where the unemployment situation is so grave that it threatens to become destructive of human, social, and economic values. When I return to my constituency for office hours and chat with the people in the general industrial area I meet with an increasingly sad situation.
It is all right for people who enjoy the security of good government jobs or who live in a section of the country where there is a vibrant industrial base to say, "Why don't they get out of there?" The historical truth is that they have been getting out, but there are so many barriers of age, transferable skills, education, home and neighbourhood attachment that the suggestion, for all but a minority of the people there, is both impractical and, in my view, inhuman. Most of the mobility in the post-war period has been to Ontario, and it is today, and has been for several years now, hardly a place to come looking for work unless you are very well educated and specialized.
We have hopes in the long run for a new steel complex that could, if realized, turn around the economy; but in the meantime the severity of the unemployment means that short and medium term projects must be used in areas of chronic, structural unemployment. This is especially true when there are such high national levels of unemployment that are largely cyclical in nature, and enhanced by the restraint and control program, so that mobility even to the prosperous Halifax-Dartmouth metropolitan area is affected because of increasing unemployment there.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has recently said that he expects unemployment is going to remain at high levels up to the 1980's. Given this situation, Mr. Speaker, the government must come up with new job creation programs. This is not the place, nor do I have the time, to discuss the merits of the programs which the minister announced last Thursday and that apparently are to begin next spring. My concern now is with this winter and the severe cuts in the LIP programs in my own area and constituency. In answering my supplemental question yesterday the minister said that his information is that the formula used for the distribution of funds to the constituencies was basically the same as last year, with some modifications to ensure that the funds were directed to areas of highest unemployment.
The minister is probably now aware of the letter I wrote to him on October 8, 1976, showing that, in essence, the formula used was downplaying the amount of unemployment in my constituency by a statistical sleight of hand. His departmental representatives in Halifax, who have so heartily co-operated with me are not responsible for this but rather the blame lies
Adjournment Debate
with some of those in Ottawa who live in their ivory towers and apparently have never seen the stark, ugly reality that confronts the unemployed who no longer have UIC benefits and detest the dole.
The minister in answering yesterday the question of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) regarding the accuracy of the statistics of the labour force survey which were included in the formula, said that "we should go back to the original system of having members of parliament in the area figure out some pooling arrangement". That seems to agree with my suggestion that the minister meet with the three Cape Breton members affected and with the managers of their Manpower offices to get a more accurate picture of what is ahead this winter regarding the employment situation. I do hope he will act on this suggestion. If it is impossible for the minister to be present, he could delegate a top knowledgeable and humane official.
I do not want to have to rise in this House again this winter and ask for emergency meetings to meet the unemployment situation in Cape Breton. Last year we had three such meetings. Those meetings were attended by Manpower officials, a DREE representative, MP's and MLA's from the area, as well as Premier Regan of Nova Scotia and the president of the Cape Breton Development Corporation. The consensus of opinion was that in the long run a new steel industry was the only permanent answer to the problem. At one of those meetings it was agreed that Canada Manpower be requested to put special funds into a retraining program in the Cape Breton area to upgrade the quality of the labour force supply, both actual and potential, in the construction trades sector. The idea was that it would be a vitally important step if a new steel complex were to be initiated and become a reality with as reasonable a construction cost and timetable as would be considered possible. If the steel complex did not become a reality, then the consensus was that it would be government money well spent.
It is now near November and all we have heard from the government so far is the bad news about the serious reduction in LIP funds. I hope the minister will call the meeting referred to above on the LIP allocations soon. After all, there were over $2 million in projects applied for and I am asked to settle for $379,000 as against $810,000 last year. If the unemployment situation were to be so improved, I would indeed be a happier man, but I know the area too well and so do the Canada Manpower managers in that region, to accept that reasoning. After all, the formula is based upon last year's figures rather than current ones. We desperately need more LIP funds and special funds for the retraining mentioned above. Today's Ottawa Journal quotes the new Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) as saying he was told to "bring compassion to the job". This is an occasion for compassion and an opportunity to practice social justice also.


Mr. Arthur Portelance (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises two questions which are not related, and I will reply first of all to his question about the lay-off of an

October 26, 1976
Adjournment Debate
the firm which for many years tended to the needs of military flying in the Atlantic provinces. The present firm was established at the urging of the government. It came into being after a certain contract came to an end, the original company having made a long and useful contribution to our national defence effort. The company was taken over by a group of men in the industry who had faith in its possibilities and continuance. They do good work. They have mastered the intricacies of the Argus, the Tracker, the Sea King helicopter, and of other, smaller aircraft used by the Canadian Armed Forces. They have the prime contract for the Argus.
Let me state my concern. It would be logical if they were to carry on with the basic overhaul, repair and maintenance work which will be needed with respect to the Aurora, when it enters service. But the full facilities of the work force, now in place and trained, probably will not be needed until the first aircraft comes off the line, has been in service two or three years, and is performing its military function and related roles. The question is, what is to happen in the meantime?
In order to tide us over the interim period, we obtained assurances from the government that work would be found for our industry in the development of the Orion. Of course that work has not been forthcoming, and I do not know whose fault it is. This evening I want to know if the government is prepared to honour its general commitment, to make certain that the aerospace industry in the Atlantic provinces, particularly in Nova Scotia, will be given work, as promised. I am concerned about IMP and Enamel Heating at Amherst. Will such companies be given the work which the government assured us would be made available? Will those company officials be able to say to their employees-and this is my primary concern-"Yes, we know where we are going, know where we are, and know how we will fill the vacuum between the end of the Argus program and when the Aurora will enter service and need our full facilities for maintenance"?
I hope that the Aurora, the Canadian substitute name for the Orion, the aircraft which is to replace the Argus, will not find itself placed in the same category as that other Aurora which fired the opening shot in the Bolshevik revolution in 1917 and, in so doing, sank the remnants of a proud aerospace industry of the Atlantic provinces.


Arthur Portelance: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member, I will say that replacement work for the aerospace industry in Canada was one of the basic conditions laid down at the beginning of the LRPA program, and the amount of industrial benefits promised at that time had a lot of importance in the choice of the Aurora aircraft by the Canadian government.
The department wanted Canadian businesses in the aerospace industry to benefit most from it. So the Lockheed Aircraft Company and Boeing were encouraged to look up all possible sources in Canada, including Nova Scotia. Two Nova Scotia firms were selected, Enheat of Amherst and IMP of Halifax, because of their excellent past performance and their

importance to their community. On representations by the minister and the department, the two companies were included in the final proposal by Lockheed as the eventual supplier of P3 components. Subject to final negotiations between the companies involved, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce expects that Enheat will produce firing domes and elevation and direction rudders for all P3 planes produced by Lockheed and not only for the Cpl40 (Aurora) while IMP will produce the electrical gear for all P3 planes and do additional work for which it is competent.
Enheat is entirely equipped to manufacture the P3 structural components and has a good reputation as far as quality, costs and delivery schedules are concerned. During the recent labour difficulties at Enheat, the department and Lockheed were naturally concerned because the time necessary to meet Lockheed's delivery schedule was running short and Nova Scotia risked losing the work by default. Therefore, official representatives of the department and Lockheed had discussions with spokesmen for the company and the government of Nova Scotia to try and speed up the settlement of that issue. In the opinion of the minister, that intervention paved the way toward bringing management and labour together in the conclusion of an agreement earlier than would have been possible otherwise.
It should be noted that IMP has no manufacturing capability but is used as a repair and overhaul base for all Argus planes. The compentence of that company is clearly in the area of repairs and overhauling.
The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce had great difficulty finding some manufacturing work to cover the gap left by the progressive removal of the Argus and the introduction of the Aurora and this without doubling the manufacturing capacity already existing at Enheat and in several other areas in Canada. However the electrical gear provided for IMP requires extensive manpower, a minimum of producers' goods and can be carried out with relatively unskilled personnel.
Lockheed and the department are seriously trying to find other gears or other similar works for that company, because the minister and the department feel that such a step would be beneficial to the government and the Canadian aerospace industry, contributing to maintain IMP as a very competent and productive centre of repairs and overhaul.
The comprenhensive worth of replacement works for the Aurora now under negotiation for Nova Scotia amounts to some $12 million and this figure is subject to increase during the Aurora program and could reach $17 million.
We have every reason to believe that the negotiations between Lockheed and the companies involved will soon be completed and that a contract will be awarded.
October 26, 1976

their performance today-they could not even organize "no". They could look too at the way people reacted a week or ten days ago in two by-elections. And why did a handful of people in this country manage to throw out what in my judgment was a very good piece of legislation, Bill C-61 for consolidation of the old Canada Shipping Act, in the form of the new maritime code? They threw it out because they no longer have any trust in this government. They no longer have faith in its ability to make regulations or bring in changes in tariff rules. But these things do not bother the government one whit, Mr. Speaker.
Our professional and technical designers have been told that they build good ships but that they are awkward, clumsy, and not nice and shiny like the hydrofoil that runs to the Isle of Capri. Who wants a hydrofoil that could run to the Isle of Capri when we have four feet of ice between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick and the straits across to Newfoundland, or when we have to haul cargo out of the St. Lawrence River to Newfoundland? We do not need a fancy, shiny MG; we need a three-ton truck designed to meet our requirements with respect to the protection of the environment.
In our ships we need good hull design, environmental protection systems, double hulls to protect against oil pollution and ruptured tanks. We have the capability in Canada, but do we protect our professionals? They were sold down the river by a former distinguished member of this House many, many years ago, and it is to our discredit that we have not done anything to restore the opportunities in this highly professional area of endeavour or to restore the confidence in us.
When the day comes that this country buys engineering plans from an American firm that it bought in Denmark which it originally bought from us, then I shall be on my feet hollering. I shall make a little bit of noise to express my regret. I am not suggesting this could happen, Mr. Speaker; I am telling you it did happen.
Why did the Americans build those two big polar ice-breakers? Was it to operate them in the Gulf of Mexico of Baja, California? No. They were built to operate in our Arctic. That is where they are going to operate, not off New York State, not off Boston, not off Portland or Seattle-there is no ice there. Those are class 7 and class 8 ice-breakers. We could do that type of engineering work in this country if only the government would display faith in our professionals in legislation like Bill C-15.
I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker, but those are just two little items. Another is kayaks. Nobody in North America is going to build a professional racing kayak in the next 20 or 30 years if we charge 25 per cent or 30 per cent import duty. The import value of kayaks this Olympic year was about $40,000 or $50,000, and yet we allow millions and millions of dollars worth of professional design work into this country without import duty, which could create thousands of jobs for engineers and consultants.
I see by one clock it is ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and by another it is one minute to ten. May I call it ten o'clock, please?
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order may I ask the government chief whip his intention with respect to the business of the House for tomorrow?


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could indicate that. Due to a long-standing engagement I cannot be here tomorrow to continue with this item. My colleague, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), will therefore introduce Bill C-2 at second reading stage. When that is dealt with, my parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), will introduce on my behalf Bill C-5. I expect to be back in the city on Thursday when I hope to continue with this item, No. 15 on the order paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I shall only take a few more minutes of the time of the House to raise a question on the adjournment debate this evening. On October 20 I put a question in connection with the reduction in the work allocation under the Argus replacement program, or the so-called Orion program. I shall quote briefly from page 262 of Hansard for October 20 when I put the following question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien):
Has the minister any explanation as to why it is that the aerospace industry in the Atlantic provinces, specifically Nova Scotia, having been offered a $6 million part of that program over a six-year period, now in fact finds that their program is $600,000 over the same period of time?
That $6 million has dwindled to $600,000, which means that the work can be done in a much shorter period of time.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) replied:
Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any such specific commitment. Evidently, I am not responsible for the allocation of contracts. I will inquire and report immediately to the hon. member.
I am not particularly interested in who is or is not responsible for the allocation of contracts, having long ago learned that this government is over-zealous in keeping such information confidential. Nevertheless, when the allocation was made, that ministry made great and elaborate promises.
At present the position is this: Industrial Marine Products, aerospace division, located at Halifax International Airport, is in a difficult position. It is the successor to Fairey Aviation,

October 26, 1976
Customs Tariff
nothing we would rather see, and the government can bank on our wholehearted and most sincere cooperation to the extent where it proves that it is really concerned about serving the people.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) would pay attention he would learn how little some members of parliament know about the item in front of us, but he would also learn how deeply concerned many of us who are speaking here today are about this item with respect to the way in which the government has treated the aspirations of Canadians and Canadian businessmen.
The item before us fails in a number of respects, and 1 want to touch this evening on one or two of them which are of some concern to me. I touch on them in the hope that I can bring to the attention of hon. members opposite some of the concern small businessmen have, for example, in the field of design work. They are concerned when they see their government choosing to ignore the plight of people in some pursuits in the Canadian industrial sector, and also when they see a government which is indifferent to the needs of a country which must pull itself up by its bootstraps very quickly.
We have the phenomenon of a very strong Canadian dollar. We have no export sales, but a very positive dollar on world markets. I suggest that part of the reason for this is demonstrated within Bill C-15, the tariff changes which are suggested. They clearly typify the attitude of the government, not necessarily by the selected items it has chosen to bring forward in this particular bill, but rather in its attitude toward unemployment. In the part of the country I come from, which has perhaps the highest unemployment rate in the land, no effort is being made. This bill is an instrument the government has available to it to try to rid the country of regional disparity, to try to bring about equity in our manufacturing sectors and to try to afford protection where protection is needed, but the indifference of the government to the pleas of a number of sectors of industry is a little discomforting.
As I mentioned, I want to touch on a few matters. I want to touch on maps, drawings, architectural prints, machine design, tool design and, good God, even building designs which are imported into this country without charge, although they may be worth millions of dollars, at the expense of the design industry in this country. That is just one area.
I will elaborate on these areas and show the breadth of the government's disregard. For example, it is not possible in this country to buy a racing kayak. That is a small racing shell which is paddled and which is used in this country by thousands of young Canadian boys and girls. It is not possible to bring one of them into this country without paying the general tariff. Not only are these items not made in this country, but there is also not a sufficient market to warrant the development of an industry for their production. Yet all our boat clubs and canoe clubs pay 35 per cent extra for the privilege of

enjoying a piece of equipment which is not made in this country, nor will it be made here for many years. Indeed there are only one or two manufacturers of them in the entire world. With regard to that particular commodity the implementation of the general tariff does nothing to encourage employment or to encourage the development of an industry.
In Halifax we have MAGI, the Metropolitan Area Growth Development Corporation, which was established almost accidentally as a result of a wild promise on the part of the government a few years ago to assist in the development of growth centres. It did not get under way for the first four or five years because time was wasted fighting over who would control the pork barrel.
I was speaking about kayaks and a 35 per cent import duty, yet at Halifax the present government permitted MAGI to pour $1.7 million into a cruise ship to develop industry in the port of Halifax and to create jobs in the port of Halifax. Where the hell are they going to cruise from, Georges Island out to Macnab's and back? Maybe they will go down as far as Ecum Secum and back. The night before last there were winds of up to 40 and 50 knots over the coast, and the temperature was probably well below freezing. What in God's name are they going to do with that ship?
The government had an opportunty to bring about a little easing of a financial burden on an identifiable group of Canadians but chose not to do so. Rather, it went through dozens of pages of items which are important in their own right, but taken either individually or collectively they do not do anything to stimulate employment in the Atlantic provinces. Indeed I doubt if the government does very much to stimulate the confidence of the agricultural industry, the manufacturing industry, the drug industry, or the textile industry. I doubt very much if the government does more than create a raised eyebrow. The government is not concerned about the well being of our country. We can range from peas through to cameras, from parts of cameras through to sugar; we can wade through a whole range of things. Not one job will be created by Bill C-15, Mr. Speaker.
1 should like to return to the question of imported technical and architectural plans. We have lost millions and millions of dollars worth of design work to other countries whilst we have people in this country with competence in these areas. The so-called replacement of the Abegweit ferry is an example. The government said that our marine designers were not competent to design a ferry for use in our waters. The hon. member for Stormont-Dundas (Mr. Lumley) laughs, but I would ask him to think about it. He is a distinguished member of this House who has had some municipal responsibility in the past. When the government sends abroad for marine architects and designers while we have people competent to do the job in this country, 1 think it is time we looked very closely at its performance.
If members of the government want to understand how closely they are being watched they need go no further than
October 26, 1976

guards to our meat and fowl and produce industry faced with massive imports.
These import quotas in various areas about which the government speaks so often could perhaps be applied more seriously and more severely on a periodical basis; for example, during summer when vegetable growers are terribly hurt by imports from various countries. Nobody is concerned about these problems and then we hear about payments to make up for unsold crops and it is always the taxpayer who foots the bill.
I think it is worth talking about its importance. There are almost 100,000 employees in the textile industry and how many thousand more in the footwear industry? I have to make it a point, as other opposition members have done already, to raise these matters, Mr. Speaker, to make sure that these industries employ Canadian manpower. But no, the government has been unwilling to take positive steps. It has not had the courage to face its responsibilities and it now asks us to pass social legislation to keep 800,000 unemployed in this country and favour the passage of supplementary estimates for social welfare.
And without realizing it this government is spoiling our generation with social measures instead of advocating work incentive measures. I am not against social measures, Mr. Speaker, but I am accusing this government of being responsible for deliberately creating 800,000 unemployed. This is a burden for our country. They give us some arguments, they make some comments. As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, it is exciting for my friends opposite to be told that the measures and efforts, if any, have obviously been inadequate.
We are asking the government to introduce more energetic measures which would be more effective. Is this government short of any positive ideas, of at least acceptable alternatives? That is one thing the Canadian people may wonder about.


Mr. B6chard:: What are yours?


Mr. La Salle:: We are asked, what are ours. First my best proposal would be that this government should resign and give way to a team which is ready to administer this country. This would be a good solution. It has been proved that positive solutions have been lacking for ten years, and I am asked: What is the solution? Courageous measures aimed at protecting Canadian industry, and restrictions on imports into Canada.
Mr. Speaker, for years now we have been advocating such things as the steady growth of our industry, some expansion where possible, of course, but is it reasonable, is it humane to let our Canadian industry go to pieces? This government could not care less and the best example of that, the most recent example, as many members are well aware, is found in the last dairy policy announced last April. They have literally given up our dairy industry, without a thought about its importance, its survival, they have given up this important economic factor in our economy. The same goes for textile, footwear, meat-as has been stressed earlier-vegetables, etc.
Customs Tariff
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would not want to be charged with wasting the time of the House. I believe it is nevertheless necessary...


An hon. Member:: That is nothing new!


Roch La Salle: Our friends opposite have one quality, Mr. Speaker, they are not wasting the time of the House, they do not take the time of the House because they figure it is useless to remind the minister of his responsibilities. Yet voters in Quebec as well as all other Canadians would like the government members to remind from time to time their own minister of his responsibilities, but that is not done.
Apparently this is the role of the opposition and we are doing our duty. We regard it as our responsibility to remind the minister in charge and this responsible government of their obligations and we believe that we have been elected respectfully and sincerely to represent our electors' wishes. That is what I am doing this evening, that is what my colleagues did this afternoon and that is what they have been doing for ten years, although we keep receiving negative answers from the government which does not dare accept our suggestions no matter how good they are.
They did accept one of our suggestions, Mr. Speaker, but failed to implement it, therefore it may be said that they did not accept it 100 per cent. I am referring to the control legislation. They could have applied to the letter the measures advocated by our former leader (Mr. Stanfield), Mr. Speaker, but as usual they refused consultation and preferred confrontation. They would rather upset the provinces, unions and business. They lied to the people and now we gather as we sow, the voters' distrust and lack of faith. Have a look at the latest by-elections.
I know my opponents don't like to hear about that but still, it is a pleasure to mention it from time to time, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: It is not a very positive suggestion!


Roch La Salle: Perhaps not, but it is a warning which should encourage the government to wake up before it is too late. As for me, I do feel it is too late already but some show of good will on the part of the government could help, and we would be willing to support measures to reduce the difficulties, the hardships Canada knows at the present time.
Mr. Speaker, I trust that the responsible minister will feel even more committed than the colleagues I face tonight. We will therefore take the opportunity tomorrow, it is not too late, to discuss and enlarge upon our remarks, so that the minister will be forced to act, because I am quite convinced that he is not willing to answer and suggest serious solutions to our difficulties.
Under those circumstances, we beg the government to show greater understanding of the present hardships of Canadians, to suggest much more interesting solutions than those, and to prove that it does promote the maintenance of the existing industry. It must be saved and remedial steps must be taken to expand it and to reduce unemployment and inflation. There is

October 26, 1976
Customs Tariff

And in the very near future, we will note a price increase on the Canadian market and there will be no benefit for Canadian consumers.

So I just want to reiterate my disappointment that a measure such as the customs tariff now being brought before the House has not addressed itself to a major problem not only in the province of Quebec but across this country. I will not be irresponsible and demagogic about it. Unemployment and industrial decline create hardship beyond belief wherever we find them, but I wish the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, in a very cool, calm and collected way would visit some of these one-industry textile towns and see the havoc that their lack of policy has created among families. Hardship and unemployment among a labour force which is mobile are one thing, but unemployment within an immobile labour force is another thing and is a cruel hoax. I would hope that the next time a measure such as this is brought before the House- [Translation]
-that this government will do something by taking such a step to help the textile industry throughout Canada.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few remarks, because I saw that my colleagues opposite were showing some interest in that question of the customs tariff. It seems that this bill, as many others, is still very important. When my colleague from Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) made his remarks, I felt that my colleagues opposite were a little bit nervous. I recognize that it is not always very pleasant to be accused of being inactive. I also understand that it was fair for my colleague to tell hon. members from Quebec, and to all our colleagues opposite, what are their responsibilities.
The way things are shaping up now it is obvious that we can expect more signs of nervousness. In recent weeks some members have chosen other responsibilities and the conditions in which we live, the economic context are all reasons liable to irritate our colleagues opposite to the point that we feel we must be ready to assume the leadership of our country because the public loses more and more its credibility in the present government.
Mr. Speaker, when I say that this bill is important, I also recognize that Canada as a whole is going through a difficult period. Maybe we should ask ourselves who is responsible for the context in which we now live. Quite often we are criticized for not finding wonder solutions; we are asked to give some advice. God knows how many members on this side have done that in the past ten years. We also perfectly remember the warnings we gave to this government a few years ago concerning the difficulties we are facing. However, no action was taken. Much too often, they preferred the status quo. Now we are in a very difficult situation, everybody recognizes that our exports are decreasing and our imports of foreign products are increasing. We wonder what is the reason for this situation.

We hold inflation as being responsible for our difficulties. However I do recall that in 1968 this government had assured and promised us to reduce inflation and unemployment. Earlier, my colleague from Brome-Missisquoi spoke about results; the results are inflation. We know the difficulties that go with it. The number of unemployed in our country rose from
168,000	in 1968 to 800,000 today.
This is the performance of the present administration that forces them to make some corrections and propose partial answers. We declare them insufficient as do the people of Canada. They show a lack of confidence in this government. When we say it in this House we faithfully reflect the views of Canadians, and our opponents get nervous and pretend that we have no reason to bring up this situation here in Parliament.
Of course, with the increase in manpower we are less competitive on foreign markets but we must ask ourselves the following question: has the government done enough to protect our industries, conserve and improve our manpower? Has this government made sufficient efforts to create new jobs? I am ready to admit that it has provided important credits for job creation, but 1 am not ready to believe that this government has made sufficient efforts to protect our Canadian production via a Canadian consumption for and by Canadians. The government is to blame on that respect.
We are told about protection for a series of products. A little earlier, one of my colleagues spoke about farm products. Everybody knows how much this industry has suffered from the lack of measures concerning importations detrimental to us and to Canadian manpower. 1 wonder if this government has not deliberately acted to reduce manpower in the textile industry mentioned earlier by my colleague. We could also discuss the footwear industry. Dairy producers have also suffered not long ago. All this because of the lack of measures and the government does not act.
We know full well that the reports which are submitted and the statements made by the ministers have no valuable results, and the textile industry for instance has lost some ground, I do not know to what extent. What they ask is that we save what is left over in Canada. And anyway, there is no guarantee that what is left can be saved in the textile industry, nor in the footwear industry. There is no guarantee that things will not be worse in future months. There is no way those industries and their employees can believe this government will deal seriously with the problem. However, the government ask that we trust them and support half-measures.
In the face of such general dissatisfaction shown these last months in particular throughout the country and across the board, it seems to me the government should be much more attentive to the current problems facing Canadians.
Job security is important to what is left of the labour force, but this government offers them no degree of assurance, no practical measures. Therefore, how can we give unreserved support to this half-measure that takes no account of the textile and footwear industries for instance and gives no safe-
October 26, 1976


Mr. Grafftey:: I know the government whip is under deep pressure these days and it has obviously affected his manners.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: I can take a joke, but we do not see you around this place too often.


William Heward Grafftey: 1 know you are not looking forward to your caucus tomorrow after what happened this afternoon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. Will the hon. member please address the Chair?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Come into the House a little more often and we will notice you.


William Heward Grafftey: After making my initial remarks relating to a textile policy, I am not going into the details of what we on this side of the House have recommended vis-a-vis rectification of the problem. All I can say is that during the last session of parliament we had a full debate, so we thought, on the subject of textiles. We had an open exchange. The then Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, now the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson), assured us that something would be done immediately. Therefore I do not think we are drawing a long bow when we on this side of the House say we regret very much that we do not see action in measures such as the one before the House. It is obvious that the government does not have an industrial strategy, be it for secondary industry or otherwise. It certainly is apparent if you discuss the textile industry.
[ Translation]
Hopefully I can still hope that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien), who comes from my province and who is one of my close friends, is aware of the problem. Even if we do not take any concrete action in the House of Commons this evening, I hope that with such a minister we can remain hopeful.

Certainly the present attitude of the government vis-a-vis an industrial strategy in general and textiles in particular convinces me that the government is still willing to live dangerously on the short-term selling of our non-renewable natural resources. This is being done in relation to our trade. I agree entirely with the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) that if members of the present government are lousy traders, it is because they have become soft. Year after year they have been fire-saleing our non-renewable natural resources.
Unless we get an industrial strategy integrated with our customs tariff policy much sooner than later, the chickens will come home to roost with obvious results. Until the government shows me differently, I remain convinced that senior ministers of the Crown have been convinced by senior bureaucrats that the textile industry in this country is expendable. What else can I think when I see the sort of attitude displayed by the government now and over the past years?
I want to reiterate from this side of the House, time and again, what we have said before. I am not entirely aware of the
Customs Tariff
details of the problem relating to textiles all over the country, but for perhaps the fiftieth time I will outline the problem before this House as it affects not only my constituency but many areas in the province of Quebec. Talking about regional development or integrated economic planning or industrial planning, we do not share the same experiences as the province of Ontario. In Ontario there are many economic areas centering around Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton, Windsor, and the Lakehead. However, in the province of Quebec-
[ Translation]
... we have the large economic district of Montreal with some three million inhabitants. We have of course very important centres such as Quebec City and Sherbrooke. However the economic planning of our province, compared with that of Ontario, is entirely different. We have rural centres . . .


Albert Béchard: There is Montreal and the remainder of the province.


William Heward Grafftey: We should be proud. I do not blame anyone. [English]
Outside the economic area of Montreal we have a much different economic situation than in Ontario or many other provinces of this country. To a great extent we find our textile industry in rural and what is often termed small-town Quebec. In my area, for example, many of the towns of 12,000, 15,000 or 20,000-whether we are talking about Saint Hyacinthe, my own riding, Magog, Downsville, Sutton, Farnham or Bedford-are one-industry towns and that industry is the textile industry. Very often the pay is low, although I admit it is getting better.
For reasons that I think members of the opposition should have convinced the cabinet of long ago, it is not a very mobile labour market. Contrary to the brainwashing the treasury benches have received from high officials, most of our plant is the most modern in the world and yet we still do not compete because of the bone-headed attitude of the government. When we have one-industry towns, a lack of mobility in the labour market for reasons I shall not go into now, and a modern plant, I find it difficult to understand, unless the government is keeping something from us which it will not admit, why it has the attitude that the textile industry in this country is expendable.
I ask again and again: why do the backbenchers from Quebec on the government side not convince the Treasury Board that it is in measures just like these in respect of the customs tariff where we could begin carrying out the recommendations, whether they be those of the Senate or otherwise? There is the argument in favour of the consumers, that by letting low priced imports in from certain other countries the consumers will be the beneficiaries of the low prices; but we have seen time and time again that the minute low priced imports are able to come into the country and finally and completely kill the production of a specific industry in Canada, then the exporting countries take advantage of the situation.

October 26, 1976
Customs Tariff
presented in the first few weeks of the session with measures which the government says are simply housekeeping measures. As the hon. member who preceded me said, we on this side of the House believe that items such as budget resolutions should indicate not that they are just nuts and bolts, ad hoc, housekeeping measures; items as important as budget resolutions should address themselves to the central economic problems of the country today. I submit they should at least be part and parcel, if you will, of an industrial strategy, whether it relates to tariffs or otherwise.
I want to discuss in particular the textile industry in Canada today. In this regard we have had studies, promises, delay, inaction from the government, as well as some far-flung Senate recommendations. We have had commission piled on commission, recommendation piled on recommendation. One minister after another, be it the finance minister or the minister who preceded him, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien), or the one who preceded him, has dealt with this issue.

They made a lot of promises to the textile industry but without acting and getting results. Considering the prevailing situation in the textile industry not only in the province of Quebec but across Canada, I wonder to what extent the ministers concerned listened to the advice of Quebec members when they met in caucus. Or still, with the results we are now getting in the House of Commons I wonder whether Quebec members actually discussed those problems in their own caucus! I ask what steps did they take and what results did they get?


An hon. Member:: What do you know about textiles!


William Heward Grafftey: You keep talking but where are the results? [English]
If ever, Mr. Speaker, there was an occasion when this House, or management and labour should have expected action, it surely should be in this measure put before the House tonight. But having had promise after promise after promise, we come to the House of Commons and once again experience inaction. It is a cruel hoax after the promises-
[ Translation]


Albert Béchard: Name one!


William Heward Grafftey: You talk a lot but I am convinced that you should speak openly to the people of the province of Quebec. Are you really satisfied with the Liberal party and the results of this government with respect to the textile industry? You are satisfied? Never!


Albert Béchard: We are never satisfied!


Roch La Salle: Neither are we!


William Heward Grafftey: If the government were really serious about an integrated industrial policy for this country in general and, more specifically, a realistic policy in textiles, surely after the promises that it has made we would see action, not a measure such as brought before the House tonight; but we do not.
[ Translation]
We had promises during the last session before the holidays. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) made them when he was Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. On several occasions, prodded by questions put by the opposition, he assured the House, the textile owners, workers, not only in my province but across Canada, that we could expect concrete action in the near future. And today what do we have in terms of proposals from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), what do we have for the textile industry? Nothing. I hope members on the government side will exercise pressures very soon to correct that very serious situation.

After the Senate recommendations, the commission reports, and all the millions of dollars the government has spent on commission after commission, there is no government in the free western world that has made more studies at greater cost to the taxpayer than this government, without carrying out one iota of their recommendations.
Whenever the Trudeau government gets a problem before it, it has a royal commission, it has a study and it spends millions and millions of dollars. From one end of the country to the other there are Senate recommendations and royal commission reports, but not one recommendation is followed.


Albert Béchard: Tell that to your friend from Central Nova.


William Heward Grafftey: The hon. member screams and yells because I am telling the truth and it hurts. Excuse me, but you are bothering me.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest that hon. members carry on their conversations behind the curtain.


William Heward Grafftey: Would the whip carry on his business elsewhere?


Mr. Goodale:: Are you going to ask Stanley to leave too?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the hon. member would say something worth while or something that made sense, I would stay in my seat.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I suggest to the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) that that is not a point of order. It is a point of debate.
October 26, 1976

Today in Ottawa there was a representation from the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. I do not propose to discuss this issue in any detail because that will be done on another occasion, but one thing came through to me. Inconsistency in government policies affects these men very greatly especially when there are higher tariffs on the export of their product from Canada to other countries than there are on imports into Canada from those same countries. On the one hand, the government says Canada must compete in overseas markets, and on the other it makes it very difficult to compete.
The "on and off' policies of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) have a lot to do with this situation. The minister has approved certain policies which will, he says, stabilize the price paid for farm products. What he does not tell consumers is that the price will not level out at a rate equal to the average of the highs and the lows, and that the public will end up paying the higher price all the time. We have only to look at the quotas imposed on efficient producers who are told they cannot produce as much as they would like. There are boards that control the production of eggs, milk and butter. I do not know how many millions of pounds of butter or how many thousands of dozens of eggs have been spoiled as a result of this policy. The supply of turkeys and chickens is either controlled already, or will be controlled before long. I speak for the consumer because I represent a community of 80,000 consumers.
Finally I want to say I am glad that the Consumers' Association of Canada has taken up the case against some of these government policies which it realizes are not in the best interests of the public though they are in the best interests of inefficient producers. This has become evident to those who are able to make price comparisons by shopping across the line in the State of Washington, for example. It is time we reexamined the claims of the consumer and the principles involved in the implementation of the various customs tariffs.
I believe the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) returned from Japan today. It is evident that the Japanese want to buy more raw materials from Canada. Free from the high costs and labour troubles so familiar here, Japan is readily able to produce and sell goods manufactured from the raw materials we supply. At the same time Canada as a nation wishes to manufacture and export more finished goods. Since we have the raw materials, perhaps we should control them and see to it that we do export more finished goods. Developing this proposition I would ask why Canadians should pay higher costs on imports subject to tariff, or higher costs on goods manufactured in Canada. This is not to say we want to be the hewers of wood and drawers of water we have sometimes been depicted as being. What that is to say is that the policies that have led us to the position we are now in need to be re-examined.
It is entirely possible that the people who are presently engaged in manufacturing goods that we could more cheaply buy from other countries could have their efforts diverted into
Customs Tariff
jobs that would manufacture commodities produced from Canadian raw materials. It could easily come to a balance where the consumer would benefit from the lower prices available to him by importing goods from other countries at lower prices, in most cases at much lower prices, and would also benefit from the tax and trade revenues received from exporting goods produced in Canada from our raw materials. As it is now, Mr. Speaker, the ordinary taxpayer is called upon not only to subsidize in many cases the producers of this country but is also called upon to pay a much higher price as a result of the involvement of the government in this sort of thing.
It is not too difficult to trace many of the problems of our exporters to other policies of the government which have made it difficult for Canada to compete in foreign markets. However, we do have many examples of industries that are still able to operate and export to world markets, such as the forest industry, such as British Columbian lumber, plywood, and pulp. Pulp from British Columbia is sent all over the world.
Opponents of my suggestion may say that the loss of jobs in the manufacturing industry would cause greater unemployment and ultimately be a greater burden on the taxpayer. I think that is something that could be examined. My contention would be that the net saving to the consumer would more than offset any loss that might be occasioned from greater unemployment. If, of course, the end result were greater production of goods, then on balance 1 think it would work the other way. Anyway let us not make small adjustments to, and temporary cuts in tariffs when obviously there is a deeper problem. I think it is wonderful to be a Canadian and to have Canadian industries, but I am not sure that Canadian consumers want always to be called upon to pay the very high prices that they are called upon to pay in order to support Canadian industry, and so that some consumers may work in Canadian industries.
I suggest an examination by the government might also uncover different policies that would reduce costs for the consumer. In the long run we might have better jobs for those people now employed in the manufacturing industries. In short, let us not close our eyes to deep policy examination. Let us not just patch up existing tariffs with temporary cuts or temporary anythings which are going to expire in one year, and then are extended for two, three or four years. Let us have a deep enough examination to get to the root of these problems.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, in addressing myself to this measure I should like to continue on in the same vein as the most able speaker who has just preceded me. I do not want to discuss so much what this bill pretends to do but rather, as the previous speaker so ably did, I want to address myself to what, in my view, the bill does not do.
I can almost hear the finance minister arguing that, like most of the items presented to the House at the opening of a parliament, this bill is merely a housekeeping measure. We on this side of the House do not accept the thesis that after a long summer's break, with the economy as it is, we should be
80001 -321/2

October 26, 1976
Customs Tariff
pulled into the debate and ask the government to take further action on behalf of friends, constituents or others.
This afternoon I find myself agreeing with what an hon. member to my left, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) was saying in this debate. I do not often find myself agreeing with members of his party, except on humanitarian values where I find we are very close.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Sojourn down here.


Mr. Clarke:: Sometimes I think I spend too much time sitting near hon. members to my left. At any rate the hon. member for Timiskaming said he was not in favour of extending temporary tariff cuts and mentioned two valid points, or two matters, which give businessmen much difficulty. He mentioned freight rates, which are completely beyond the control of the businessman but may affect him greatly, and referred to the customs tariff, which again is completely out of his control-the tremendous swing effects may affect particularly the small businessman who may be in difficulty through no fault of his own, owing to pressure brought to bear on the government.
The hon. member for Timiskaming also deplored the extent of government intervention in small business. I think he actually said-I mention this in case my remarks are reported to him-that he would keep government out of business. It was refreshing to hear that from a member of the NDP. I understand that party loves freedom and believes in the freedom of the individual. I certainly agree with that position. Many of our business troubles would be easier to treat if there were less government involvement with business.
When governments involve themselves in business, the inequality of treatment they mete out is one of the difficulties we encounter. It does not seem to matter which sector of the economy the government wants to help; it ends up hurting just as many, or even more people. I suppose the most recent example of the ineffectiveness of a particular government policy is the so-called peace and security package which was brought forward in the previous parliament. Before we had finished debating it at committee stage, the government itself had proposed 50 amendments to the legislation drafted under the aegis of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford).
Our customs tariff contains not a few inequities; some have been reported to the government; some I have myself reported. Unfortunately the present bill does not attempt to correct them. May I give you, Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues some examples of what I mean.
One example has to do with a hobby which interested me greatly even before I came to this place, the hobby of vintage cars. For a long time vintage car enthusiasts have been trying to persuade the government to give them relief. Those Canadians are trying to preserve part of the history of Canada, if you will, and want to restore automobiles, many of which were made in Canada. They want to keep their hobby alive in Canada. But instead of obtaining relief from the government this group of Canadians find themselves penalized at every turn. For example, they have to go to the United States to get

the old tires they need for their vehicles, and when they bring them in, the full rate of tariff is imposed on them. The same applies to the parts for these vehicles which are not manufactured in Canada. The whole history of tariffs is disregarded.
It might be said that, after all, these are automobiles and that there can be no exception for automobiles. But bear in mind that these are historic automobiles. No exception has been asked for any vehicle less than 30 years old. On the other hand the tariff does provide, in a complete about-face, that antiques-furniture and other non-mechanical things-are exempt. Anything over 100 years old is covered by the definition and is allowed into the country duty-free. The exemption applies, as well, to original works of art as long as they cost more than $20 or something like that. Any hon. members who know people who have smuggled paintings into this country can tell them they have wasted their time because they would have come in free anyway.
There is a direct relationship between original works of art and antique or vintage automobiles. Many people think of the latter as works of art and they are by definition, certainly antiques.
That is one example. The Minister of National Revenue (Miss Begin) gave us another today. Obviously our efforts will be in vain for many months, in any event, but in answer to questions about delay caused by people returning to Canada at the border crossing at Douglas, British Columbia, the minister indicated that more staff had been hired and, since the traffic problem seems to have been caused by Canadians returning to this country after shopping in the United States, and the fact that the groceries for which they shopped incurred duty at different rates, which involves unpacking and repacking, she would try to get the tariff changed as it affected the casual importation of groceries. I am not certain whether she intended to make it easier for Canadians by removing the duty on casual importation of groceries, or whether it was her intention to ban the casual importation of groceries, an action which would certainly have an effect in dealing with the traffic problem at the Douglas border crossing.
We find that the pressure goes on, certain businesses react to it, the business cycle is upset, and we get into more trouble than ever. There are examples I could give. Clothing manufacturers, providing jobs in Canada, have found for a variety of reasons that their operations were impracticable and they have ceased to manufacture. As a result hundreds of workers have been thrown on the job market. This is not the fault of the customs tariff, it is the fault of other government policies. The firms concerned are not going out of business. They find they can import the goods which they formerly manufactured in Canada, pay the duty, and still sell at a profit here. Jobs have been lost, but the companies stay in business by taking advantage of conflicting government policies and there is no evidence that the proposal before us has taken account of these deep-seated problems.
October 26, 1976

From January 1, 1976, to September 5, 1976, compared to the same period last year our exports of fresh and frozen pork were minus 90 per cent; hams minus 13 per cent; backs and loins minus 10 per cent; bellies minus 4 per cent; shoulders and picnic plus 13 per cent; side and spare ribs minus 19 per cent. In processed pork, cooked hams were up 26 per cent; cured hams minus 50 per cent; backs and loins minus 62 per cent; bellies minus 24 per cent; shoulders and picnics minus 48 per cent; pickled in barrels plus 3 per cent-that must be the prime promotion of the Minister of Agriculture-canned hams minus 82 per cent; other canned pork plus 83 per cent; boneless pork minus 14 per cent, and pork with bone in minus 54 per cent. The average was minus 10 per cent over last year.
These figures are taken from the Canada Livestock and Meat Trade Report so I have not just taken them out of the air. They are available to everybody and we have to accept them as authentic.
The Minister of Agriculture and his colleagues, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and the Minister of Finance, will have to get busy and develop policies that are acceptable to the industry. If they do not, we are going to be in serious trouble because there is no way we can survive in an economy that is showing a $5 billion trade deficit while our export trade continues to fall off.
We have been relying on our grain a great deal to counteract this trade deficit. Grain trade alone amounted to about $3 billion last year but, since July 1 this year, the price of wheat has dropped 70 cents per bushel and all the other grains have fallen in price as well. We also realize that we can no longer rely on those countries that have bought our grain in the past. There are reports that Russia has a surplus of grain this year.
I bring these matters to the attention of the Minister of Finance so that he can give greater consideration to the rural parts of Canada. It may be that since he lives in Toronto he is not too worried about the production of food, but those in the industry know that we have to plan now for produce that will come to market in three years time. The government must not hesitate to develop good trading patterns with our customers to ensure a market for our surplus. These patterns should be developed particularly between western Canada and the northwestern United States, and the Montreal-Toronto area with the eastern United States. I should also impress upon the Minister of Finance that financial policies have a direct bearing upon whether we win these markets or not. He should keep in mind as well that income tax and other forms of taxation have a direct bearing on the output of the labour force. The minister must accept his responsibility in this regard; if he does not, Canadians will suffer the consequences.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, in rising to examine the merits of Bill C-15, the adjustments to the customs tariff, I feel I should address myself first of all to a little of the history involved with tariffs in general. Some time in the distant past tariffs were imposed by various countries for the protection of their home industry. We find that probably every country in the world now has some kind of customs
Customs Tariff
tariff ruling. They are changed from time to time, but probably none so often as those in Canada.
In 1973 the minister of finance was Mr. John Turner.


An hon. Member:: Who?


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: In introducing his budgetary measures on February 19, 1973, he said he was introducing temporary cuts on a wide range of consumer products. It would be difficult not to agree with some of the reasons the minister gave for proposing those cuts. The important thing was, they were temporary cuts. I found it easy to agree because in my constituency, Vancouver Quadra, there are not what one might call specialized groups. For instance, in my riding there are no agricultural producers, in fact no farmers of any kind, and no manufacturers as such. On the other hand I do represent some 80,000 consumers. I find that there is no spokesman for these consumers who, after all, must pay the bill and pick up the tab after everybody else has had his little bite.
In that very same debate in 1973 my colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), took issue with the minister about the temporary nature of those tariff cuts. He said, as reported at page 1,522 of Hansard for February 21, 1973:
These will not be temporary. I do not anticipate the minister having the opportunity of announcing in the House that he is revising these tariffs and increasing them again.
History has again proved the hon. member for Edmonton West to be absolutely correct. The minister never had the opportunity to increase the tariffs. His own actions, of course, prevented his doing anything of that kind.
Since that first action taken by the then minister of finance in 1973, we have seen further extensions of these tariff cuts. At present we are considering a further extension, as proposed last May by the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald).
As I mentioned, other countries have introduced customs tariffs to protect their own interests. I shall touch on other methods which other countries use as an adjunct to the formal type of customs tariff. These adjuncts are known as non-tariff barriers. For example, a non-tariff barrier could consist of a provision restricting bids to businesses resident in that particular country. Another could be impractical documentation requirements. Documents may be required in a particular language, or in a form which may be impractical for businesses in other countries to use. Another example might be an unrealistic financing arrangement which would serve to keep foreign businesses out of the market in the particular country passing the regulation.
It seems, in the matter of tariffs, that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. It often seems that if a particular industry or business is big and gets into difficulty, for any reason, it appeals to the government for protection. We on my side of the House sometimes fall into the trap. Sometimes friends, constituents or others appeal for help and, although we say there is already too much government involved in business, we are
484

October 26, 1976
Customs Tariff
The government should become involved in the development of our processing plants. This is what I am talking about. That is what we need in western Canada.
In a moment I intend to refer to a speech made by the premier of the province of Alberta along these lines. In any event, Mr. Harris went on to say:
"Tax laws also can be terribly important. It seems to me one thing when you talk about risks of Bell Canada or International Nickel, but something else when you talk about XYZ Manufacturing.
We in western Canada need companies like XYZ which will process our meat products so that we can capitalize on that northwestern United States market.
"You expect better returns (from XYZ), but it requires a great deal more patience. It is highly questionable whether you should have the same tax structure for these two very different types of equity investment."
He advocates tax incentives to investors to provide the risk capital for companies like XYZ, and to entrepreneurs to develop businesses they can pass on to their families without onerous succession duties.
Without external financing, such companies must deploy retained earnings, bring in partners (often big corporations, therefore hastening business concentration) or stop growing.
"We think this is an important area of Canadian business planning."
This is where the Canadian government, through the Minister of Agriculture and his colleagues in the cabinet, is failing. There is not adequate planning for the development of an industrial base.
Just the other day, on October 13, the premier of the province of Alberta spoke to his legislature, and I want to put on the record some of the statements he made, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, we have to find new markets for our agricultural products. The United States provides one of the best potentials for markets. One of the better areas is processed boxed beef. But we have to make some changes in the tariff and trade situation. We allow it to enter Canada at a duty of 3 cents a pound. But when we want to sell it from the west into the northwest or into California, the United States has an ad valorem tax of 10 to 15 cents a pound. Now it is important for us to make some breakthroughs in these trade and tariff areas. When I was in Washington in June, I spent a fair amount of my time discussing it with senators, congressmen, and the administration.
I might say just in passing that this is one of the breakdowns of development in Canada. That is because the federal government is not seizing the initiative to develop these foreign markets. The federal government is leaving it to the premiers and to departments of several provinces, for example, the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario. They all send their trade delegations to foreign markets, to the European Common Market, Japan, and wherever they can find a market.
The premier went on to say the following:
But let's recognize how important it is for Alberta. It's key in the Alberta economic strategy for agricultural processing, Mr. Speaker, and trade and tariff arrangements are going to become more and more the attention of the Executive Council of Alberta, and I hope of the whole legislature. Canada's negotiations on GATT are critical to Alberta, and hopefully we can move more effectively in bilateral negotiations with the United States, particularly in the area of agriculture.
We are going to be involved, and we want to be involved, in a very high risk area of agricultural processing. For we must process these agricultural products in this province, and we must get into the world markets. We must become less dependent merely on the price situation of the basic grains, and the China and Russia crop situation. In international marketing it has been our policy for Five
[Mr. Towers.J
years, through our agencies, to do what we can to move in and Find new markets. And we have had some important successes.
Mr. Speaker, in terms of economic strategy-and we have them-in the fall of 1974 it was outlined. We have made considerable progress in agricultural processing, both in terms of the support we have given and the initiatives we have made, but equally because we have created a climate here. We have seen concerns come to this province to process our agricultural products, and so there have been. Later in the fall we will have further elaboration on some very important steps forward in this area.
Why in the world should a provincial government have to do this by itself? Why does the federal government not get involved? After all, regardless of what happens, the federal government has to sanction trading agreements which are made, and certainly the federal government and the Minister of Finance would be well advised to get involved in this at the initial stages, become a part of the process and develop it. The minister would then feel better because he would have achieved something worth while.
I want to impress upon the House the importance of the process about which I am talking. We have to develop a trading relationship with our friends to the south because of the importance of that trading relationship to us. This year, from January 1 to September 25, our imports from the United States of pickled and cured beef are up 100 per cent plus. Our importation of cooked beef is up 63 per cent and our canned beef is up 69 per cent. That is only for three quarters of this year because the last week of September and the months of October, November and December have yet to be added, so the situation will be much worse.
Imports of fresh and frozen pork give the following story: carcasses and sides up 100 per cent; hams up 62 per cent; backs and loins up 20 per cent; bellies up 100 per cent; shoulders, butts and picnics up 69 per cent, while side and spare ribs are up 91 per cent. Processed pork, cured hams were up 100 per cent plus-and we have a falling pork market in this country, Mr. Speaker. Cooked hams were minus 66 per cent, so we seem to have a market for cooked ham. Backs and loins were up 100 per cent plus; bellies, sides and bacon up 47 per cent; shoulders, butts and cottage rolls up 100 per cent plus; pickled in barrels minus 3 per cent; canned hams, shoulders and picnics up 100 per cent plus; other canned meat up 25 per cent; other pork with bone in up 100 per cent plus, and other boneless pork up 100 per cent. The average was up 79 per cent over last year.
Canadian agriculture cannot withstand that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Whelan:: Canadian exports of beef were up.


Mr. Towers:: The minister says our exports of beef were up but I would remind him that our quotas of dressed beef going to the United States are full for this year. The last two months of this year will create serious problems for our beef producers.
Our export picture is exactly the opposite, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to put the figures on record. I think they will show the minister that he has a job to do.

but a heinous reply to a definite need for action. As I mentioned earlier, it would take a concentrated effort on the part of the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand), and frankly he will not get the support he needs. He may well be the sacrificial lamb for a cabinet which is not doing the job which the Canadian public demands of it. If we could have more responsible action, we would not be in the shape in which we find ourselves tonight.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, as I rise to take part in the debate on this bill I am particularly pleased that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has seen fit to come to the Chamber this evening. Judging by his performance in the last four years, unless he changes his policies and his pattern, I do not expect too much to come from the present policies of the minister. I have greater hope in the leadership of the hon. gentleman who is in the gallery tonight representing the Canadian Department of Agriculture because that is where our strength lies at present, certainly not in the Minister of Agriculture because when he first came to the House of Commons he said that he would be a minister who answers his telephone. I want to tell hon. members that this is the highest priced answering service that Canadian agriculture has ever had.


An hon. Member:: Just like the Liberal whip's check-off system.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Canadian agriculture has been going through a traumatic experience in the last several years. It cannot continue to suffer the consequences of bad policies, or lack of policies, because the producers are being placed against the wall. If agriculture is to survive, it will require the assistance of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) and of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) as well as new direction from the Minister of Agriculture because of the fact that we have been enjoying high prices especially in our pork industry. I will deal later with some of the schedules that are part of Bill C-15 now before us. I believe that, with the recent drop from 35 per cent to 40 per cent in the selling price of pork and cattle, the pork producer is hardly making a profit.
We are all very much aware of the fact that the beef producer has been operating at a loss for the last three or four years. The hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis) mentioned the fact that representatives of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association are now in Ottawa trying to encourage the Department of Agriculture to adopt policies which will be beneficial not only to the producers but also to the consumers, and to our trading partners in the world. They are very much aware of what has happened in the last eight or ten months. Imports of beef from the "down-under countries" has increased by 60 per cent. We know what this has done to the selling price of beef in Canada. Actually the cow-calf operator here has been the victim of circumstance over the past several years. For this reason it is of fundamental importance that the government, through the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and the
Customs Tariff
Department of Finance, bring in policies which will alleviate the situation.
The producers cannot stand it much longer. They are going just as far down the road as they can go. Many are going into bankruptcy and selling their herds because of the fact that there has been a fait accompli; they are finished. What will happen if the government does not bring in policies to encourage production? The consumers of Canada will either have to depend on world markets or go without. That is a serious choice to make, and now is the time to adopt policies which will be of benefit to producers and which will ultimately benefit consumers.
Just today in the Toronto Globe and Mail there was an article referring to Canadian manufacturing. When I say "Canadian manufacturing" I am not only referring to textiles and other forms of manufacturing but also to the manufacturing and processing of beef.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) is in the House this evening, and he is well aware of the difficulties we have in Canada due to transportation problems. It is a costly venture to bring produce from western Canada to the eastern market in either Toronto or Montreal. It would be far better for us in western Canada today if we could market our produce in the northwestern United States, but that is a sophisticated market. You cannot send live cattle; in most cases you cannot send carcasses down. We have to cater to that market, and this is where government policies come into play. This is what we are dealing with in this ways and means bill. We should be developing ways and means of encouraging western producers to capitalize on that market in the northwestern United States.
By the same token, the market available to the western producer in Toronto and Montreal could be turned around and supplied by the producers in the eastern United States. However, this would require reciprocal trade arrangements, and this is where this minister and his compatriots, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Finance, are falling down. They are not using any innovative process to bring this about, and this is causing a great many problems for the beef production industry in Canada.
I referred earlier to an article in the Globe and Mail of this morning, and this is what it said:
Canadian laws make it difficult for small and medium-sized companies to get the required financing for growth and as a result "we're developing a nation of very few corporations," Peter Harris, president of A. E. Ames and Co. Ltd. of Toronto, says.
He was referring to companies beyond the venture capital stage as "the people in that business (venture capital) tell me the problem is finding attractive deals. They think if anything there's too much venture capital."
To emphasize the problem, he questioned what secondary manufacturing operations can survive in Canada, as even companies that have an established market have serious financing problems.
Mr. Harris acknowledged that the Canadian business environment, with small markets and high labour costs, is a problem not easily solved. But governments should help, he insisted, for example by the "recognition of the importance of investing laws for insurance companies, banks, trust companies and pension funds.

October 26, 1976
Customs Tariff
This is a good industry. It is a capable industry, but it is an industry which is facing decline. Unless there is some support forthcoming from the federal government we will not have an industry in the very near future. Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong are shipping in something in the order of $250 million worth of textiles every year. We have watched Sweden completely lose its textile industry.
I have seen problems relating to the lack of controls particularly in my community. The Government of Canada must realize that if it lets this industry go down not only will many jobs disappear but, as has happened in other industries, prices will soon rise to a point above that which Canada is producing the products for and, if this happened at a time when our outside sources could be cut off, we would be in serious difficulty. There is a need for quotas and regulations. Other countries much larger than ours, for example, the United States, control their imports, and we certainly should.
While I have mentioned the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien), I wish to make one last remark in this particular area. It seems a sad state of affairs when the president of a multinational corporation in Canada, which has a large plant in the city of Belleville, cannot get to see the Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce before 10 o'clock in the morning or after four o'clock in the afternoon, and even then has to wait six or seven weeks to get an appointment to talk to him. This is typical of the type of approach we have had from this government.
I want to spend a very few moments discussing another industry. I am glad the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is in the House because I wish to talk about agriculture. It seems to me this is so basic an industry that we should certainly be giving it top priority attention, yet in Prince Edward county just south of Belleville some 4,000 acres lie fallow this year. The vegetable producers in that area presented their case to the Department of Agriculture months ago. They made it very clear what is necessary to keep this industry alive. The answer from the Department of Agriculture, which really was no answer, was that they wanted to wait to see what the pack looked like. Of course they did not get a whole pack but they got a very good pack of what there was, and now the processors are selling the product for $1 a case less than it cost them to produce it.
These producers are not trying; however, they are quite prepared to meet a fair market. As a matter of fact they are prepared to take on the major producer, they are prepared to take on the United States on an open market basis. They are capable of meeting that kind of competition but they are not capable of meeting competition from other countries such as the ones I mentioned earlier, from countries like Taiwan and others where the rate per hour is less than 10 per cent that paid in Canada, and the cost paid by producers for the raw product is less than half that being paid in Canada.
We know that at one time there was a commercial strawberry crop in Canada. Without support, that crop vanished com-
[Mr. Ellis.)
pletely. The consumer in Canada is paying a whole lot more for strawberries coming in from abroad. Since there is no competition here, they will have to pay what the market will bear.
At one time there was a binder twine industry in Canada. Again, with no support from the government, the industry folded and, as every farmer in the country knows, they are now paying over four times for binder twine what they paid seven or eight years ago.
Meeting with many of the members of our caucus right now in this building are members of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. I do not intend to intrude on the areas under the jurisdiction of my colleague, the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave), who knows that industry particularly well. Let me just say that they have presented to us the case they put to the federal cabinet recently for a fair and responsible beef import law. The government has seen fit to do absolutely nothing about it. They are not only the laughing stock of the world but they are taking the butt of the criticism of world beef producers because not only are they not protecting themselves but they are causing chaos in the rest of the world market.
Finally I should like to speak about an area of agriculture about which I know a little, namely, the dairy industry. We have had so many problems in the dairy industry this year that it is not even funny. Early in the year the Minister of Agriculture decreed that we had to stop producing milk. A few days ago, the quotas were increased. Surely the Minister of Agriculture knows that on the south end of a north bound cow there are no taps. You cannot turn them on and off again.
It takes a lot of time to bring an animal to milk production, and you just do not turn it on or off that quickly. In my particular part of the country where the finest cheese in the world is produced cheese factories are now finding that they are only producing five days a week instead of the normal six days, and very soon they will have to cut down to three days a week because of shortage of milk. I make no bones of the fact that I accuse the cabinet of doing this maliciously. We are now importing something in the order of 50 million pounds of cheese a year, and I suggest that two years down the road, with the shortage of cheese right now, there will be a shortage of well cured old Canadian cheddar which is so popular. Sure enough, that will be the justification for importing more cheese.
What I have outlined very briefly are the problems that I have encountered in Hastings and Prince Edward counties. I am confident that they are multiplied in every area of small manufacturing and in the rural agricultural industry throughout the whole of Ontario. After listening to my colleagues I am reasonably certain that the same is the case in the rest of Canada. If you multiply the problems I have outlined throughout the whole of Canada, you will have some idea of the great problem with which we are faced.
Looking at the throne speech I see one of the answers which the government puts forward is that it is prepared to create jobs directly in some locations. This is not only not the answer
October 26, 1976

previous agreements. Safeguards would now provide for the timely detection of the diversion of significant quantities of nuclear material for the manufacture of nuclear weapons or explosives or to purposes unknown, and for the deterring of such diversion by early detection.
From 1970 on, safeguards continued to develop. Nuclear suppliers, who have certain generally defined obligations under Article III of the NPT, consulted for a number of years to develop the complex technical details of those international safeguards. In 1974 one major phase of this development was reached when a substantial number of supplier countries reached a consensus on their obligations and notified the IAEA in some detail of their interpretation of their obligations. Subsequently a number of bilateral discussions have been initiated by Canada to examine the question of safeguards in great detail. It is my understanding that there have been diplomatic discussions of a sensitive nature and in such cases it is up to the participants, if they so wish, to outline their role and policy.
Since Canada is a founding member of the NPT we, in conjunction with all other non-nuclear weapon state members, have IAEA safeguards applied to all of our nuclear facilities. Our position is fully consistent with the developed consensus that restricts transfers of certain equipment, materials, and technology to those countries from which we have formal governmental assurances which exclude uses which would result in the production of any nuclear explosive device. These transfers would also trigger the application of the safeguards system of the IAEA, and their retransfer to any third country could only be done on the basis of the consent of the Government of Canada.
These safeguards also apply to items covered for their useful life as well as the subsequent generation of any nuclear material which might be produced. Agreements are in place to deal with provisions for mutual concurrence on the arrangements which a recipient might wish to reprocess, store, use, transfer or retransfer any plutonium or highly enriched uranium that is covered. Standards of physical security are covered. Canadian policy is also progressive in its promotion of other international co-operative means for non-proliferation such as internationally controlled regional fuel centres.
These are policies in effect and which are shared by other supplier countries concerned about the problem. What we have seen develop is a consensus expressed in unilateral form by a number of countries to accept certain safeguard principles in all cases of nuclear exports to non-nuclear weapons states.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I ask if the House would be willing to consider the suggestion made by the hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) that this bill retain its position or, if it cannot be at the top of the list, at least that it stay as No. 5 under Public Bills so that further discussion can be had at a later date?
Customs Tariff


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, although I did not hear the original remark by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), our general inclination would be to deal with this matter in the normal course. It is of course a subject of great public importance, but we expect the subject matter can again come before the House of Commons in a variety of ways. I think we should deal with it in that fashion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In other words, the hon. member is saying no.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: There is no unanimous consent. The hour for private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
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. Macdonald (Rosedale) that Bill C-15, to amend the Customs Tariff, be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, the hon. member for Hastings has the floor.


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, when the hour for the consideration of private members' business arrived I had just completed a discourse on the problems relating to the lack of government intervention in the tariff field and other fields in respect of certain industries in and around Hastings county.
For a moment I wish to talk about another industry which is hard-pressed throughout Canada at the present time. In my area there are a number of textile related industries, manufacturers of clothing. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce does not appear to be taking any action in this area under its new minister from Quebec despite the fact that there are some 200,000 jobs in Quebec in this industry; actually almost one out of every four working people is engaged in this industry. There would seem to be a lack of good will on the part of the government which has trading agreements with some of the underdeveloped countries where wages are less than 10 per cent of those in Canada. We have the highest wages in the world in this particular industry, and at the same time are faced with lack of interest on the part of the government in this particular field.

Ratification of Nuclear Exports
The parliamentary secretary says that it is difficult to get everybody to agree, and I admit that. It is not easy to deal with all the countries that manufacture reactors and sell uranium. I hope the time will come when we will get this kind of international co-operation. However, I submit that we ought not to hide behind the fact that we have not been able to get all of the nuclear countries to act in concert.
There is an old saying which goes like this: "I can't do everything, but I can do something, and what I can do, by God's grace I will do". I plead with the government and the members of the House to face up to this moral issue, to let this bill go to committee, and to let the members of the committee discuss this question to see whether it is not possible, either in the terms of this bill or in an amended bill, to put on the statute books of Canada the kind of binding safeguards which, in so far as it is legally possible, will prevent reactors that we sell to other countries from being used for the ultimate destruction of mankind.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) and the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) that this is indeed a very important matter which the government takes very seriously, that of nuclear proliferation in the world.
It seems to me that many of the objectives outlined in clause 3 of the hon. member's bill have already been satisfied. He proposes that our exports meet the minimum criteria of the International Atomic Energy Authority. Of course that is so. Clause 3(2) refers to the re-export of spent fuel rods and would prohibit the use of fuel which has gone through a Canadian reactor to be further processed. These are the standard requirements of our export agreements at the present time under the International Atomic Energy Authority, the NPT and, of course, the nuclear suppliers group. Such objectives are applauded and encouraged by all Canadians because they naturally want to ensure that our technology, our reactors, and uranium fuel are used for peaceful purposes.
The bill proposes that we bring before parliament every agreement regarding the sale of nuclear technology, nuclear fuel, and nuclear equipment. It seems to me there would be many practical problems in doing this. Think of what is involved if every box of valves which could be used in a nuclear reactor, every agreement for the sale of every kind of equipment used in reactors, or every agreement for the sale of uranium had to be brought before parliament for consideration.
Under our traditional parliamentary practice treaties have been executed by the executive branch, the governor in council. Under our British parliamentary traditions it has not been the practice to bring treaties before parliament for ratification, such as they do in the United States and in other jurisdictions.
The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands suggested that the treaties which we have now, the International

Atomic Energy Agency agreement, the NPT, and the nuclear suppliers' arrangements and safeguards are completely meaningless. The hon. member is very eloquent and capable of very descriptive language, but surely he goes beyond all reason in saying that the safeguard arrangements which we have in the world are completely meaningless. Ever since the beginning of the nuclear age, Canada has been dedicated to a role of peaceful purposes for its technology, reactors, and uranium fuel.
A great deal of the public discussion continues to display a profound lack of knowledge and comprehension of the complexity of the problem of non-proliferation, of the important and far-reaching efforts deployed internationally to solve this problem effectively and of the vast progress achieved in recent years. I feel quite strongly that if this parliament, through some fault of its own were to enact the views expressed by the opposition, this could well be harmful to the active and effective pursuit of an international consensus on safeguards.
I should like to recall that during the debate on nuclear exports last March the then Secretary of State for External Affairs explained at length the pre-occupations of the government in steering a course that permits reaping the full economic benefits of nuclear power while preventing nuclear weapons' proliferation. However, I feel it important to elaborate on these issues and repeat, if necessary, some of the basic principles which have produced a Canadian safeguards policy which is the most stringent and demanding in the world today; principles which have given Canada leadership for safeguards in international meetings.
First, it must be emphasized that national and international safeguards standards have never been static. They have been in continual evolution since the first nuclear co-operation agreements were entered into in the early 1950's, and have developed steadily through innovations made by Canada and other suppliers, through elaborate and detailed consultations, and through international commitments such as the NPT and the consensus among suppliers reached at London last year. Present day levels of safeguards represent the degree of stringency which the major nuclear powers are prepared to enforce. But these are not static either. They represent a threshold from which further progress will hopefully be achieved.
The development to today's high standards has been difficult. The establishment of the International Atomic Energy Agency in 1956 was the initial step to promote multilateral safeguards regimes. At first early safeguards were primarily applied to small isolated reactors rather than to interconnected facilities. This initial system of the Agency was then further defined and extended in 1965, 1966 and 1968. Here the safeguards system was again oriented to individual facilities rather than to the fuel cycle as a whole, but each facility bears the full weight of safeguards.
Then in 1970 international consciousness had developed sufficiently to culminate in the achievement of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Under this agreement safeguards took on specific technical objectives as opposed to the generalized statements of "peaceful purposes" which were embodied in
October 26, 1976

possible safeguards so that the people of Canada can sell a CANDU reactor in good conscience and with complete assurance that it will not be used for warlike purposes.
It is true, as the parliamentary secretary has said, that the government has attempted to impose safeguards. But in the main those safeguards are meaningless; they represent nothing more nor less than an exchange of opinion accompanied by no sanctions, no arrangements to enforce them or take retaliatory action if commitments are not kept. I believe the legislation before us would help tighten the safeguards. It is true that the only answer, ultimately, is an international agreement under the United Nations, or an international agreement signed by all the nuclear countries so that sanctions could be imposed; those who sell nuclear reactors and nuclear technology could immediately impose sanctions against any country which broke its commitments. However, if such an agreement is impossible at the present time, the legislation proposed by the hon. member for Don Valley is surely far superior to anything the government has suggested or done.
This legislation would require that any agreement signed with countries securing a nuclear reactor would involve, on their part, compliance with the latest criteria established by the International Atomic Energy Authority. I myself would go much further. I should like to see a receiving country required to sign and ratify the non-proliferation treaty.
This legislation would require that in any agreement between Canada and a purchasing country the receiving country would agree to Canada controlling the disposition of the radiation wastes-it could bring them to this country or take whatever action it wished. Moreover, the recipient country should not be able to re-export any of the nuclear technology or nuclear fuel, and would be forbidden to acquire a reprocessing plant. This is the nub of the whole question, Mr. Speaker.
Countries such as Argentina, South Korea, Pakistan-and now Brazil-have all been negotiating with France or with West Germany for the purchase of a reprocessing plant, and it has been said many times in this House that there can be no purpose whatsoever in acquiring a reprocessing plant except to extract plutonium, enabling the nation concerned to manufacture nuclear bombs.
The legislation which has been put forward forbids the purchasing country itself to construct a reprocessing plant and use the nuclear waste from the reactor. I might add that it is not difficult to construct a reprocessing plant. Scientists in India have themselves built a reprocessing plant. As the former secretary of state for external affairs admitted in the House, Argentina has already built a small reprocessing plant which it says is for experimental purposes only.
I think the most important part of this proposed bill is that it would require the government, prior to signing an agreement for the sale of a nuclear reactor, to table the documents in the House, to send the matter to a committee of the House of Commons and Senate, which must report to the House within
Ratification of Nuclear Exports 20 days so that the House would have an opportunity by vote to agree with or reject the proposed agreement.
The parliamentary secretary has put forward two objections to such an arrangement. First of all, he says that the matter of entering into treaties comes within the royal prerogative. I would remind him, first of all, that a declaration of war comes within the royal prerogative. Way back in the twenties the Right Hon. Mackenzie King himself pledged that no Liberal government would declare war on its own, that any declaration of war would have to come from parliament, and he carried out that pledge in 1939. Surely this is equally important. Such an agreement could precipitate war in some part of the world. The signing of an agreement to sell a CANDU reactor to some other country, particularly an unstable country in a troubled area of the world, is equally important and ought to be submitted to parliament.
I know the old nineteenth century argument that the executive has the right to make treaties and that, if the House of Commons does not agree, it can vote no confidence. Well, with the majority that this government has and which many governments have had and others may have in the future, that is no safeguard.
The other argument is that the voters can reject them at the next election. It will not be much protection for humanity, Mr. Speaker, after you have sold a nuclear reactor and you find the recipient has used it for warlike purposes, to ask the electorate then to deal with the government. The damage has been done.
I was amazed at the final argument that was put up by the parliamentary secretary. He said that if we had to delay the sale of a nuclear reactor until parliament dealt with the matter, it would damage our credibility and-I took down his words-"we would lose trade advantages". I repeat, Mr. Speaker, "we would lose trade advantages". If the parliamentary secretary is speaking for the government, the government should be ashamed to say that trade advantages are more important than having the elected representatives of the people given an opportunity to say whether or not Canada should place in the hands of another country the power to devastate their countryside and possibly to precipitate a nuclear war.
A nuclear war, Mr. Speaker, is not like a conventional war. Conventional wars have laid waste countries, and devastated cities. But a nuclear war has given man the capacity to destroy all life on this planet and to leave it a burnt out cinder revolving in space. Surely on a moral issue as vital as this the government is not going to refuse the elected representatives of the people a voice in determining whether or not such a formidable and important step should be taken by the Government of Canada.
I say with great seriousness to members of this House that this is not a question which should be dealt with on any political basis. I assume that members in all parts of the House have a deep social conscience as to what we as Canadians are doing with this terrible power which has been placed in our hands.
478

October 26, 1976
Ratification of Nuclear Exports
NPT to share with countries signatories to the treaty the results of its activity in the field of nuclear energy to contribute to the fast development of that form of energy, not only in developing countries but also in advanced countries whose traditional energy resources are being depleted. If our country does not meet its international commitment, it could certainly create a disenchantment concerning the NPT that could have the unfortunate effect of encouraging many countries to withdraw from the agreement while some others could abandon any plan to join.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I shall mention the leading role played by our country in the north-south dialogue in which we try, with many countries, to find answers to get through that difficult transition period in the energy field. Since the traditional supply sources are being depleted or becoming less accessible at the same time as we are getting through a crisis caused by an unprecedented increase in oil prices, we should try to find such answers to contribute to the balance of the world economy. Nuclear energy is still a vital alternative that must play an important part in this transition period by relieving the international tension and offering a fair choice to the poorer countries. At the same time, the use of nuclear energy by advanced countries reduces the use of oil and is beneficial to developing countries which lack the resources required to be valuable competitors on the international oil market.
Mr. Speaker, those are additionnal details about our international commitments which I wanted to set out on the occasion of the introduction of Bill C-205 by the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies), and which I wanted to submit to the consideration of this House. These additional details complement numerous others put forward to underline the necessity to shoulder our responsibilities not only towards Parliament but also on an international level where we have a part to play and commitments to fulfil.
Mr. Speaker, as long as we do not have any worthwhile alternative to this precious source of energy that nuclear energy is, we will not be able to prevent the international community from gaining accesss to it. On the contrary, we must go on working to introduce still more efficient controls and prevent the transmission of material and equipment considered as critical. Surely this government's policy is not unalterable in matters of nuclear exports, as evidenced by some recent decisions like the end of our cooperation program with India.
My time is up, Mr. Speaker. I would have other remarks to add, but I want to give other hon. members the opportunity to express themselves.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of giving my wholehearted support to Bill C-205 and to commend the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) for having introduced it.

The whole question of the proliferation of nuclear weapons is not a matter which ought to be dealt with lightly. There ought to be no gamesmanship to talk this bill out so that we do not have to consider it again this session. I hope all parties will agree to give unanimous consent so that if this bill is not dealt with by six o'clock it will be set at the head of the list again in order that it may be referred to a committee of the House where it can be studied further, and from which it would be reported back to us. I make this suggestion in the belief that the matters raised in the bill before us constitute the greatest moral issue of our time.
In the past 50 years science has made more advances than were made by mankind in all the previous thousands of years in which man has inhabited this planet. The progress of science has been so rapid that social ethics and public morality have not had an opportunity to bring to bear upon the results of research the type of restraint which is necessary if man is to survive.
The two men who were the leading figures in splitting the atom, Dr. Albert Einstein and Dr. David Oppenheimer, were tremendously perturbed that this devastating power which they had placed in the hands of the people of the world might be used for destructive purposes. Thirty years ago only the United States possessed this atomic capacity. Later, the Soviet Union acquired it. As long as the two superpowers maintained a balance of terror we had some feeling of safety. Today, however, nuclear capacity has been extended to nation after nation and all the indications are that yet more nations are acquiring the capacity to produce nuclear weapons.
Canada has a major responsibility in this area because, through the work of our scientists, we have produced the CANDU reactor-and for this they deserve credit; it is probably one of the safest reactors. But it is also the reactor from which it is easiest to make use of the radiation wastes for the extraction of plutonium from which nuclear bombs can be made.
1 was surprised to hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Leblanc) say that only one or two countries had tricked us. That is the point of the legislation we are considering. We only need one or two countries to trick us. As a matter of fact, every time a country tricks us and uses the CANDU reactor to produce plutonium and nuclear weapons, it stimulates its neighbour to do likewise. We already have the example of India which used the reactor to produce an explosive device, a course of action which has encouraged Pakistan to do likewise. The fact that we are selling a reactor to Argentina has set Brazil in that country's footsteps. This process of proliferation is going on at an alarming rate.
The parliamentary secretary has put forward an argument which the former secretary of state for external affairs regularly advanced, namely, that Canada has a responsiblity to ensure that the scientific know-how which we have acquired is shared with less developed countries. I believe we do have such a responsibility but I claim equally that the developing countries also have a responsibility, which is to accept the tightest
October 26, 1976

ments we are negotiating with other countries. Such a process would jeopardize not only our international credibility but also the resulting commercial advantages of such a sale, treaty or contract.
In this field, as in many others, the executive power must be able to assume its responsibilities by retaining the initiative of its negotiations with regard to nuclear exports. Needless to say, that initiative is conditional upon certain criteria which, in the last few years, as all hon. members know, the present government made it its duty to elaborate with a view to preventing the proliferation of nuclear arms, which threat must command the utmost awareness and which, because of the importance it is given, on a daily basis must hold the complete attention of those who are responsible for formulating that policy.
Indeed, because we are aware of the extreme importance we must give our nuclear policy, the former Minister of External Affairs, the Hon. Allan MacEachen, endeavoured to explain to the House, during the debate on March 23 last, the guidelines of our policy as well as its inherent characteristics.
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to refer to that debate since it gives an account, in clear and specific terms, of just how concerned this government is about checking the proliferation of nuclear arms while allowing those developing countries, that have the infrastructure and the guarantees of security required for cooperative agreements in that field, to have access to the technology we are in a position to supply them. I have no intention of reviewing the agreements put forward over the years in this regard, but I would like to remind you that the government has the duty of assuming its responsibilities in such a way as to make sure that we participate actively in the economic development of those countries-those with which we deal-while at the same time respecting our international responsibilities to avoid nuclear arms proliferation. It is certainly not by staying aside and burying our heads in the sand that we will finally help efficiently reduce nuclear proliferation after considerable investments were made to develop a nuclear technology which, despite its risks, solves, in an adequate and economical way, the crucial problems we are facing.
We must pursue our endeavours to establish additional mechanisms to ensure the peaceful use of this new source of energy, and I think the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) raised the problem with Bill C-205 because it seems that occasionally some countries do not always make a peaceful use of the products we export, in opposition to the agreements we made with them.
I suggest that it is a challenge we have to take up, which the present government did with great success-I say this in spite of the little experience I have gathered in this area up to date, I must confess-since our nuclear technology remains accessible to those who express a legitimate need to purchase it and the will to accept some safeguards and conditions which rule out any possibility of nuclear explosion or other forbidden uses. It is because we are convinced that the NPT is still the
Ratification of Nuclear Exports best way to fight against nuclear proliferation that we decided to be more active, in order to complete the adherence to the treaty of the fifteen-odd la'rger countries which are not yet signatories to it.
An eventual decision by Canada to end its sales of nuclear reactors would surely remove a major factor in the foreign policy of Canada at a time when our country is considered as playing an active role in such a delicate sector. We will never insist enough on the fact that proliferation can be prevented or at least reduced as a long term danger only through coordinated and constant action by the various supplier countries and their customers. We must realize that we are not the only country which supplies nuclear materials and we do not have all the customers in the world; other countries are clients or suppliers.
Now unless there is complete and total agreement among all those countries, it is rather difficult, as I said, to reduce the long term danger. Withdrawal of Canada from the international market would only remove the influence and the role which we have played up to now not only in restricting the danger of proliferation but also in being party to drafting more effective international safeguards. It is with that mind that Canada has lately made increased efforts to set more rigorous standards in such key sectors as reprocessing, recycling, storing, selling or reselling plutonium as well as enriched uranium. Nobody ignores that as a country exporting nuclear reactors Canada has been in a position up to now to contribute to the development of solutions in those sectors, which solutions have gone a long way, in my opinion, toward clarifying the situation and lessening international stress.
I am quite delighted in that respect at the recent statements of France's Higher Council for Foreign Nuclear Policy and at the indications given in American newspapers as to the future direction of the American nuclear policy which show more restrictive policy as far as exports are concerned while insisting on the necessity of a common and coordinated rather than unilateral approach to the problems of proliferation. Of course we are encouraged by these signs which are, in several cases, similar to criteria already included in the Canadian nuclear policy and which are consistent with principles of the utmost importance for us in Canada.
Such an initiative in countries among the more active in the nuclear field can only encourage us to continue our action. On the other side, we can only recall that on another occasion, the adoption of much stricter safeguards in the nuclear policy endorsed by the government in December 74, our action was also exemplary since it encouraged the group of supplier countries known as the London Club to adopt guidelines similar to ours in 1975. During the same period we have witnessed the development of existing international consultation mechanisms and a greater cooperation to encourage supplier countries to control more efficiently their radioactive material reprocessing plants by looking for practical arrangements concerning the management of plutonium.
I shall also remind hon. members that Canada has also committed itself, according to the terms of clause 4.2 of the
476

October 26, 1976
Ratification of Nuclear Exports
In addition, the bill requires that all safeguard agreements be permanent and, most importantly, that every safeguard agreement signed by the government of Canada comes to parliament for ratification before it is signed. Any proposed agreement would have to be submitted 25 sitting days before the intended date of signature to a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate. That committee would have to report back to the House, and within 20 days that agreement would have to be called for debate in the House, and within five days after being called it would have to be put to a vote.
Surely, it is the responsibility of every member of parliament to be concerned about this matter. Surely, it is common sense for something which is so important to the future of mankind to be debated in our House of Commons. Even in the United States, where there is a complete separation of the legislative and administrative functions, legislation has been passed so that there has to be positive affirmation on the part of Congress before there can be an export of nuclear technology. Surely, we cannot accept the proposition that we must make this nuclear technology available to less developed countries immediately in order to help their development. It defies logic to suggest that it is more important for an underdeveloped country to have a nuclear potentiality today-even though we do not have the necessary safeguards-than it is to wait until such safeguards can be developed in an effective fashion. Indeed, the argument that we are only selling to less developed countries is strange in the extreme when we talk about exporting to Japan and had negotiations with Iran about nuclear reactors.
It is argued that if we do not make nuclear technology available, other countries will. But surely that cannot be the issue. On something as important as the risk of weapons being developed by other countries, we cannot decide the issue on the basis of commercial considerations. It is a moral question. All that Canada brings to the field of international negotiations is its moral position and surely Canada has the moral responsibility of slowing down the possible spread of nuclear weaponry.
If one wants to use the commercial argument, there is need for power development in this country. We can use all the nuclear reactors we can build and all the heavy water we can produce domestically. However, aside from that, it is wrong for Canada to be involved in the export of nuclear reactors when we know that the product of reactors can be used- because it has been used in India-for the development of atomic weapons.
I urge everyone in this House to allow this bill to go forward-and not to talk it out-so that years from now every member of parliament can say that when he or she was called on the issue of what Canada should do about the spread of nuclear potentiality, he or she had an opportunity in the House of Commons or in the Senate to vote on it.


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I must say first of all that it is the first time that I have the honour and the pleasure, since my appointment as Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to take part in a debate in this House about the responsibilities of that department. I also wish to commend the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) for introducing Bill C-205. Of course, I agree with many points raised by the hon. member who took it upon him self to introduce such an important bill.
However, before taking a definite stand on the bill, I do not think we should, as a government, impute motives to those countries we deal with in that area. It may have happened on one or two occasions that some countries played dirty tricks on us following a sale. But I do not think that principle applies generally to all the countries we deal with. I feel it is also important, Mr. Speaker, to remind this House of a few highlights of the Canadian nuclear policy and to express my views on the constitutional question as to the necessity of securing parliamentary ratification, and I refer to section 5 of Bill C-205, for the export of nuclear fuels, equipment and technology.
As hon. members know, it is not customary for this House to seek parliamentary approval in order to ratify a treaty or to commit this country through international agreement or treaty. In Canada, and the hon. member for Don Valley knows it better than I do, the constitutional authority to enter into arrangements such as treaties is part of the royal prerogative commonly exercised by the governor in council. Such ratification is therefore incumbent upon the executive. However, this government has always made it a point, and I want to emphasize this, to distribute to the hon. members any important documents related to nuclear exports. Besides, it is in this spirit that on January 30 last, the executive tabled copies of the nuclear co-operation agreements with the Republic of Korea and the Republic of Argentina. It is in this same spirit of cooperation that we have tabled the statements concerning Canadian policy on safeguards to clear the matter and provide hon. members with important and necessary information about government action in this field and to supply them with all the data which, in our own view at least, are relevant to those agreements and policies.
Furthermore, hon. members-in particular the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies)-have doubtless realized, upon reading those various papers, that several prerequisites such as financial conditions, safeguards and some more comprehensive ones of a commercial order must be met at the same time to enable us to arrive at a consent confirming their acceptance. I do not see how we could act efficiently if we had, after all those conditions have been fulfilled, to wait again for several months for Parliament's approval. We all know that it sometimes takes a long time for a bill to be passed in the House. Sometimes we have to wait several months for Parliament's agreement before signing those business contracts and agree-

October 26, 1976



It being five o'clock p.m., this House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order No. 1, in the name of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin). Shall the order stand, at the request of the government?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order No. 2, in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Shall the order stand at the request of the government?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order No. 3, in the name of the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington). Shall the order stand, at the request of the government?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order No. 4, in the name of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds). Shall the order stand, at the request of the government?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley) moved: that Bill C-205, respecting the parliamentary ratification of the export abroad of nuclear fuels, equipment and technology, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think everyone on all sides of the House of Commons would agree that there is no more pressing matter facing all mankind than the capability of various nations to develop nuclear weaponry which has the capacity of destroying all mankind. The existence of this capability has grown tremendously during the last two decades. Immediately and for a decade after world war II only a few nations possessed the capability of destroying the world with nuclear bombs, and the balance of power at that time made the possibility of such destruction taking place reasonably slight, but today, as the Stockholm Peace Institute has reported, 35 countries will have nuclear weaponry by 1985. The institute reports, further, that with 35 countries having the capability of
Ratification of Nuclear Exports exploding nuclear weapons, the possibility of maintaining peace, and indeed the world, until the end of the twentieth century is slight indeed.
It seems to me that it is unfortunate that Canada has become one of the nations which is in the forefront of the spread of nuclear technology throughout the world by pressing the sale of our nuclear reactors to various countries. We know all too well what happens when we sell these nuclear materials without appropriate safeguards. In our sale of nuclear devices we have been, essentially, double-crossed by India, which is now one of the dictatorships of the world. We know that unless there are appropriate safeguards it is almost certain that some of our nuclear reactors will be used for other than peaceful purposes.
1 was astonished to read in the newspapers today that it is hoped that one of the things which will come out of the trip of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to Japan is an opportunity to sell more nuclear reactors to that country and to thereby contribute to the possibility of power struggles in the Far East. We have supplied a reactor to Argentina, one of the most unstable countries in the world, and while I want to debate this point as a moral issue and not as a commercial one, it is interesting to note that we not only supplied a reactor to Argentina but we did it at enormous cost to Canadian taxpayers. We are supplying reactors to Korea, a country which spends more dollars per capita on weaponry than any other country in the world. We know that the safeguards on the export of nuclear technology are not adequate. In the report issued by the Atomic Energy Commission it is stated that the safeguards are not adequate at the present time. Therefore, it seems to me to be common sense, if nothing else, that every member of parliament should be concerned about what has to be one of the most important issues in the world today.
The bill I introduced, and for which I ask the support of all hon. members, proposes-and I do not see how anyone can oppose this-that Canada not sell nuclear devices, as defined in the bill, nuclear reactors, technology and fuels, to any country which does not sign the safeguards agreement of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Second, the bill calls for the return, if appropriate, of spent fuel from the reactors to Canada. This is the only true safeguard in the control of the use of nuclear reactors at the present time. The bill would forbid the re-export of any technology, equipment or fuel from a country which buys them from us, and it would prohibit the importing country which buys a nuclear reactor from us from acquiring a reprocessing plant, so that it cannot take the material which comes from our reactors and reprocess it into a fuel which can be used for a weapon.
One of the issues of debate today is the fact that France is trying to sell to Pakistan a reprocessing plant. There is no reason in the world for any country to buy a reprocessing plant if it does not want to get involved in the weaponry business. That is what a reprocessing plant is all about. We should not allow our reactors to go to a country in which there is any possibility that a reprocessing plant will be acquired.

October 26, 1976
Customs Tariff
Some comments have been made this afternoon by various members who have preceded me on the question of perhaps never needing tariffs, the controversy of free trade versus fair trade. I should like to think that in many instances we do not want tariff protection, and shortly 1 will dwell on a few of those instances. But in fact industry in Canada is about one-tenth the size of industry in the United States, obviously because the population, the community to which we sell our goods, is one-tenth the size of that in the United States. Unfortunately, however, in many of the industries, and a few in my own riding, the unions have brought the rates and the benefits which they are claiming up to well above their U.S. counterparts. As a consequence, their ability to compete is drastically hindered.
I should like to make a point regarding the small community in the southeast portion of my riding which until about two years ago had produced a very fine product. They sold it in Canada reasonably competitively, but when the market in this product depressed in the United States, the major American producers merely had to slough off about 10 per cent of the surplus production to completely dominate the Canadian market at a price with which the Canadian producer in my riding could not compete. There was no protection. This factory was particularly efficient for its size. It was relatively new, it turned out a good product; but without protection it was unable to compete in the depressed market.
The effect of taking away some 325 jobs in a small community of about 1,500 souls in total was devastating. It has been quite a while since we have had such a blow. But the federal government would not protect the industry, and when the industry finally closed its doors and people were out of work, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion would not assist in any way because they said unemployment was not high enough. I do not know how high it has to go in a small community before they are prepared to intervene.
Let me say, in passing-and I am not in particular trying to blow my own horn-that we were successful. I was instrumental in bringing a new industry to the vacant factory. They are not going to have as many men as were there before. This new industry is part of a large international industry. They will be able to compete. The government of Ontario saw fit to help them with $500,000-but, once again, DREE was not prepared to help. Fortunately, their product is one which comes under the auto pact and they will not need the tariff protection which the previous tenants had. The only help we got from the federal government is that which you get when you start any plant under Canada Manpower in support of the initial salaries of employees.
The problem of getting a plant like that started brings up another point to which 1 would like briefly to refer in passing. In the throne speech, a great to-do was made about the Federal Business Development Bank. It is the same thing as the Industrial Development Bank, the same bird, the same feathers-and, frankly, it will produce the same kind of fertilizer as the IDB. With their usurious rates, their unreasonable

collateral requirements, and their shameless loss record, they do nothing to encourage Canadian industry. A few years ago I spent a good deal of time going into that matter in some detail, and I do not intend to do so now.
Closer to my own home, right in the city in which I live, is an industry that for many years has been competitive in the market. About two years ago they brought to my attention a problem they were having with the Department of Finance. They pointed out that one of the major products which they use could be brought in from France and Italy at a lower price than they could produce the product in Belleville, simply because of the taxes that were applied to the product made in the Belleville plant. I took this matter up with the then minister of finance and, suffice it to say, since then I have a file many inches thick. In effect, the department has acknowledged that there is a problem and that sooner or later they will do something about it. I hope they will do it soon because that plant has announced they are closing their doors, which they will do in December of this year, at which time they will lay off some hundreds of employees. They will start to package their product in a much smaller warehousing operation in Belleville.
While it is not entirely the result of this tax problem, in my opinion the correcting of the tax problem expeditiously would have prevented them from taking action for the time being. Once again, in 1967-68 they were assisted by the provincial government when they were having some problems, and they fulfilled their responsibilities to the provincial government and were kept running for another seven or eight years. That extra employment in a small community the size of Belleville, which numbers some 35,000 people, is worth-while.
These are some of the things that the new minister faces. Since I have left ten more minutes of my time, Mr. Speaker, and it is nearly five o'clock, I would like to call it five o'clock and continue after dinner.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrester) -Industry-Reduction in work allotted Nova Scotia aerospace companies under Aurora program; the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan)- Manpower-Local Initiatives Program-Request for extra funds for Cape Breton area; the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert)-Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Allegation of bias in programming-Suggested investigation.
October 26, 1976

A deficiency payment program of $11 million to $12 million brings total returns well within the level of the previous year and fully meets the intent of the act.
The intent of the act had to be changed if it fully met that. The minister talked about bringing it to the level of the previous year. Elowever, production was away down the previous year, and then up the next year. We can talk about dollar values, tons or pounds. The dollar value was similar, on a much higher production: the reason was competitive prices in another country, and imports into Canada.
So far as apples are concerned, about five years ago we had a balance of trade with about one million bushels going each way. Today, two or three times as many apples have been coming into Canada. This is what we must compete with. It might be said that much of this is caused by the higher wages paid in Canada, or because of the higher interest rates. If this is the case, and we have higher wages and higher interest rates, and therefore higher costs in Canada, the government has a great obligation. We hear about border crossings in respect of food, especially along the border of British Columbia. I suspect this situation exists all across Canada. I am sure it exists in Ontario, except that the news people are not watching the situation as closely there. Certainly, the situation exists in British Columbia. Can we have it both ways? Can we expect to have higher wages and take this money out of the economy and buy our food more cheaply across the border? Surely people will do this. People are built this way, and this is what they will do.
The government, however, has an obligation. It was here when the situation was created. The government allowed this to happen and has an obligation to do something about it. The fruit farmers in the Okanagan tell me that they can grow fruit as cheaply as anyone. They have to pay more for spray. They go across the border and bring it in, in order to become competitive.
There is another area where they cannot do this. I refer to the matter of water for irrigation purposes. The producers in Washington state, in the United States, use pretty well the same water we use, except that we must pay more for it because we have had the expense of putting in the dams and the systems to hold it back in the hills, and they pick it up when it is down in the mainstream. Because of this, the Americans do not have the same expense that we have. We can go across the line and bring in equipment duty-free, if someone will sell it to us. They do not want to guarantee it when it is to be brought in here. There are problems in respect of parts, and so on. But we can compete and grow products just as cheaply, even in the face of many of these barriers. But after the products leave the farm gate there are many added costs such as those I mentioned in respect of transportation and higher rail costs.
The farmer does not want a stabilization program. If rail costs are higher in Canada, and if the railways have decided they will take all that the traffic will bear, stabilization should
Customs Tariff
be placed on them and not on the backs of the farmers at the farm gate.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to this Elouse that the time for action is here. We cannot carry on in this manner. I do not think we will need S350 million worth of make-work programs. It is said that part of this money is to come from the UIC. The UIC is in a deficit position. EIow can the government get anything from the UIC? We need healthy farm, textile and manufacturing industries in Canada in order to create jobs for Canadians. Let the market go to work and let the manufacturers go to work creating jobs. If the government wishes to spend $350 million, it should spend it to help put our trade in the right perspective. It should not put people out of work and processors and manufacturers out of business. We should put them in business. I welcome the fact that this bill is to go to the committee state, where we will be able to debate it further.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, I, also, intend to intervene briefly in respect of Bill C-15, the Customs Tariff bill. I will attempt to limit my remarks so that I can close by five o'clock. At the outset I should like to take the opportunity, because I did not speak in the throne speech debate, to publicly express my congratulations to you, sir, in your new position. We will look forward to your wisdom and guidance from the chair, and I am confident that all members will respect your judgment.
Tariffs can usually be equated with protection. Had I spoken on the throne speech, I would have spent most of the time talking about the problems of small industry and other production facilities in the Hastings area which are in difficulty. This bill, however, gives me a much better platform from which to express these views. Also, had I spoken in the throne speech debate I would have had a few words to say about some of the members of the cabinet. I will, for the most part, limit my thoughts to the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand) who has been appointed Secretary of State for some ambiguous purpose of assisting small industry.
It is very commendable that all of a sudden the government has realized that small industry has a place in Canada and that the people who work in small industry are taxpayers who would benefit from a strong, industrial community in Canada. 1 believe, however, that the minister will end up having the sympathy of most members of the House because, frankly, I am not at all sure what it is he is to do. True enough, the throne speech devoted a whole paragraph to the high regard in which the government holds small industry, it seems that the minister will be doing quite a bit of travelling. He is already on his way to Russia. Frankly, I do not think he will sell much over there. I am not sure what they could teach us in the way of free enterprise. In his new position, I think the new minister should attempt to obtain some co-operation. It seems to me he could co-ordinate some of the awkward functions of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Department of Revenue, the Department of Regional Economic Affairs, and last, but nof least, certainly the Department of Finance. If he did this, he would really be doing something.

October 26, 1976
Customs Tariff
asked what we expected to trade to Japan, what they needed from us, the answer was, "CANDU reactors and STOL aircraft". I do not think we need to trade-off our natural resources in this manner. I do not think the Canadian people believe we have to, either. We do not have to be soft in our trading with other countries which need our natural resources. It is because they are necessities to they them that we can be hard.
Duties and tariff policies in Canada have not kept pace with inflationary tendencies, and to further aggravate the problem there have been two duty reductions in the past four years on virtually all food items. Let me put on the record some examples of Canada's cheap food policy. In 1975 this country imported 83 per cent more dairy products than in 1973. Likewise, in 1975 Canada imported 370 per cent more berries than in 1973. Some 58 per cent more apples were imported in 1975 than in 1973, 200 per cent more honey, 74 per cent more jams, 294 per cent more chicken, 33 per cent more canned ham, and 1,086 per cent more tobacco, though only a few us eat tobacco.
In 1974, Canada imported five million pounds of chicken from the United States, which amounted to less than one-tenth of 1 per cent of Canadian production. In the same year, 1974, this country exported 12 million pounds of chicken to Cuba. However, in 1975 Canada had literally no exports of chicken-so hon. members can see just how fast we were kicked out of Cuba. Nevertheless, we imported over 12 million pounds from the United States, making an increase of nearly 250 per cent in the import figure. This year the trend has continued at an ever faster rate. Figures up to June, 1976, show that Canada has imported 22 million pounds of chicken from the United States. Year-end imports are estimated to be 50 million pounds, up 400 per cent over 1975 and equalling 7 per cent of Canada's total production.
This is the sort of thing being experienced by Canadian food processors today, Mr. Speaker. Food processors and canners in Canada are in very dire, desperate straits. They are going out of business because they cannot compete with imports of canned, processed products from other parts of the world. Last year, the big canning companies and some of the big chain stores sent their labels to Australia and the United States to be put on canned goods in those countries and sent back to Canada.
As far as the manufacturing was concerned, the only job that we in Canada got was the labels. Possibly that was because of the bilingual requirement on labels. That could not be done there, so it was necessary to have it done here. Just think of the number of people in Canada being put out of work as a result of this. What is happening in the farm production area? This is the trend in Canada today. This government must accept responsibility for this trend. They have made it very easy to do this kind of thing. There is no real farm policy or food policy, only a cheap food policy. When these companies go out of business, we will be subject to the whims of

other countries. We do not have the kinds of policies that would do anything in the event of a national emergency.
Fresh fruit and vegetables are another example of the bad position that producers are in across Canada. There are unnatural barriers in these areas as far as tariffs are concerned. Transportation cost on fruit coming from the Okanagan Valley to eastern Canada are as much as one cent a pound higher than the rates being paid by United States competitors. They have this one-cent a pound advantage even though part of their shipping is done on Canadian railroads. When the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) visited that area about a month ago, the producers asked him about this and the minister replied that if they could ship cheaper on American railways, that was the way they should do it. I submit that that is not a very good way for this government to be talking to producers in Canada.
Stripped potatoes coming into British Columbia have been affecting potato prices. These potatoes are stripped off crops in the United States. They are not put on the American market because that would upset their market price. Instead, they are sent to Canada, upsetting our market price. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) was asked about this. He replied that the government would stabilize prices. Our producers want to operate on a competitive basis. They do not want stabilization. However, they have had to accept stabilization because they do not get anything else from this government. Because of the cheap food policy, the producers must accept large hand-outs from the government. I wonder whether Canadians would not pay the price rather than have their tax dollars go toward stabilization. How long can we operate in this way?
It is time that we took a serious look at the automatic surcharge. This has been used in Canada before, but we seem to be araid of it. I believe the automatic surcharge would stop this kind of situation. When we stop to take a good look at the situation, we see that the consumer does not benefit. The consumer does not get the product any cheaper. The one who gets it cheaper is the person who brings it into Canada. By the time the consumer gets it, it is the same price as the top Canadian product. With these cheaper imports, the Canadian producer cannot sell without cutting his price down to that of the import price. However, the price to the consumer does not change. There are many examples of this. One occurred here in Ottawa last year. Even though the consumer had to pay a good price for apples, the producer received very little. This is what happens in the marketing system.
Stabilization is open to many abuses. All the producer wants is to get his money from the marketplace. Early last spring 1 asked the minister about Canadian apple producers having to pay higher transportation costs than their competitors in the United States. I pointed out that this was a trade barrier. The minister replied that if we could prove that, he would provide stabilization. Well, it was not hard to prove. However, when it came time to get stabilization for apples, the cabinet used the gimmick of limited production at both the top and the bottom. I wrote to the minister, and he replied:
October 26, 1976

make the statement that it could, if it wished, manufacture that product in Canada-although they have not done so and, in my opinion, do not intend to do so-will not do our own entrepreneurs any good.
These matters are undoubtedly very complicated, but it seems to me we have given the civil servants in the Customs Tariff branch a great deal of leeway for a long time, and that the average member of parliament ought now to look into this question and decide whether it is time for most of them to retire or else justify their existence.


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to talk on the Customs Tariff bill. I should like to express my appreciation of the eloquent speech delivered by my hon. friend from Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) on this subject. He set the tone for the debate which should be carried on with respect to this subject.
These are times in which many Canadian industries are facing serious hardship. The minister maintained, in the course of his speech, that the Customs Tariff left room for accommodation in cases of genuine hardship. But although we know that a lot of hardship is being experienced, we cannot find any use being made of this leeway, or whatever the minister had in mind. At the present time, a serious situation faces those engaged in the manufacture of textiles, shoes, mobile homes, boats, farm products, electronics and a number of other commodities.
I read in the newspaper the other day that the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) was calling for a federal inquiry into the price of food in British Columbia. The hon. member for Windsor West was minister of consumer and corporate affairs at one time, and I would remind the House that this is a situation which has been developing over many years; it did not arise overnight. Moreover, it is not confined to British Columbia. I wonder why he is not calling for a federal inquiry into prices across Canada generally, including the price of hardware, chemicals and equipment where the cost of importation appears to be disproportionately high.
Let me take, as an example, the sprays we use in orchards in British Columbia. These are manufactured in the United States; they come up through the valleys of Washington into the valleys of British Columbia, and they are duty-free. A year ago it was impossible to buy them without paying 30 or 40 per cent more than the price just across the border. In other words, the border crossing, without duty, raised the price by between 30 and 40 per cent. This is not a tariff barrier, Mr. Speaker; it is a border barrier, one which is manufactured, nobody knows why. I know this to be the case because fruit growers in my area were crossing the line to buy their sprays in the United States: it was the only thing they could do if they were to remain competitive with fruit growers in that country.
Some might say that a situation of this kind is not the responsibility of the federal government. In my opinion, it is. Why does this sort of thing happen? Situations of this kind need to be investigated, as well as the high price of food, and I hope the hon. member for Windsor West will urge the govern-
Customs Tariff
ment to broaden the inquiry he proposes and extend it to other areas. Indeed, he should have taken action along these lines when he was minister of consumer and corporate affairs.
As far as imports into Canada are concerned, the two industries most seriously affected are farming and textiles. Canada is the only country in the world which fails to protect farm products. We are aware of the great outcry among Canadians in favour of preserving our farmlands, the general feeling that no more of it should be paved over or otherwise destroyed. Yet that has been the response of government, especially the federal government? We are the only country in the world that does not protect farm products. How can we have one without the other? Many other countries of the world have goals for food production which are intended to maintain the level of production and guarantee a reasonable supply of a particular commodity in times of international emergency. We do not have any such thing and are trying to preserve farmland.
Other countries have tariffs and quotas and they also have trade barriers. I think the worst of these is the trade barrier. The hon. member for Timiskaming said that we should not close our border and make it easy to create a situation where we accommodate companies and industries that are not competitive and efficient. I agree with that. I do not think anyone is asking that our borders be closed so that we can accommodate inefficient industries, but what we do want is the same kind of deal that other countries have.
As far as trade barriers are concerned, I have made reference to a certain spray which is manufactured by another country. This is the sort of thing that happens in Canada, yet our government sits idly by and does absolutely nothing about it. Other countries have quotas to protect their farming industry. If their farming industry becomes endangered, they erect trade barriers, just as the Japanese have done against apples from British Columbia. They say these apples have codling moth and therefore they cannot accept them. We have proved beyond a shadow of doubt that their apples also have it, but it does not matter; they do not want our apples anyway. That is the kind of trade barrier they have erected. We do not do this sort of thing. Canada can rightly be described as a saint in a world of sinners. I say, let us have free trade. I think most Canadians are not against free trade so long as it is fair trade.
The hon. member for Timiskaming also said that if we had free trade in this world we could produce, manufacture and compete. I believe that is very much the case, but we cannot do so under the structure we have in the world today. We do not have fair trade, yet we are calling for free trade. Under this guise of free trade, Canada has a cheap food policy. We trade-off our raw materials and natural resources with another country in return for food and textiles, the basic commodities that we have in Canada. That is the kind of trade-back we get on almost every occasion when we want to sell a CANDU reactor or a STOL aircraft. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has been in Japan on a trade mission, and when it was

October 26, 1976
Customs Tariff
schedules and rates are established and say, "These rates are sacred." It is almost as if the tariff structure were the unchanging Bible or Talmud of the Tariff Board.
I wish the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) would involve himself less with agriculture. It has been said that we turn to the Minister of Finance when the agricultural industry is in difficulty. I think international agriculture would be a lot better off if governments stayed out of the field, and I mean provincial, federal and other governments. All over the world governments are involved with agriculture. All over the world governments pay subsidies to agriculture. Every time a subsidy is paid, or one country's tariff is adjusted, the effects are felt in all other countries.
I agree with the Minister of Agriculture that, whether we like it or not, we are dealing in an international market and are affected by it. What the Australians do with their beef affects the market in the United States, Canada and even the Common Market. Beef sales affect the sale of pork, eggs and other protein foods. Therefore, changes in one part of the world in one commodity affect markets in many other countries in that same field. Yet it is difficult to make changes; and changes, even when needed, are slow in coming. The Egg Marketing Board, previously mentioned, contends that it has the right to limit the number of eggs coming into the country. I think they should have that right. Before they can exercise it, they must go to the Minister of Finance. He must allow the required time to go by before acting, consult people in the field, check with the interested people in GATT and then introduce changes. But the effect of such changes may be detrimental, not advantageous. It seems to me that such action is not really what we need. If we are to compete with other countries we must process more of our raw materials in labour-intensive industries.
Mr. Speaker, factories in the area I represent deal probably with every country of the world. They export diamond drilling equipment and diamond drill-bits to almost every mining venture in the world. It has not been easy for them to compete. Whenever a new development, new process or new piece of machinery is introduced, they immediately run up against our entire tariff structure. They have survived because they are probably more competent than others in the field anywhere in the world. My point is this: we must increase our capacity for employing people, because many of the commodities we used to export from this country are no longer abundantly available.
It was easy to run up a favourable balance of trade when you could export oil as if it were going out of style, or ship out in a totally unprocessed state this country's mineral wealth. Now, many commodities are in short supply. We now know that we do not possess endless resources of coal, oil, iron ore as well as other basic commodities. Therefore, we must process these commodities in this country and make sure we do it in a way which will allow us to compete.
If we lived in a world of free trade, a world in which governments did not intervene in the market, I am sure that we could, to our great advantage, trade with other countries around the world. Unfortunately, we do not live in such a

world. We have earned money with raw material exports, but have spent large sums in subsidizing commodities exported.
Let me give an example, Mr. Speaker. We, in northern Ontario, a few years ago were shipping iron pellets to Pittsburgh. It cost us 2'A times as much to ship the iron out as it did to bring in the clay necessary for making those pellets. Why did this happen? The Ontario government owned the railway serving the area and heavily subsidized the goods going out. 1 did not subsidize anything coming in. If we are to compete, we must do better than this. Too many road-blocks have been thrown up by governments. If we are to compete, we must tear them down. I related the example of the glue. Mr. Speaker, in that case the company hired an expert consultant from Germany. He had been the consultant to almost every plant on the North American continent built to make that kind of product. But our Tariff Board was not sympathetic. It said that we would eventually be able to develop that kind of glue in this country; therefore, the tariff on it would not be removed. That tariff added considerable cost to the finished product and made it harder for companies using the glue to remain competitive.
This story has been repeated in other areas. For example, in my area a manufacturer wanted to erect a plant in which he could assemble stoves prefabricated in the United States. The stoves were to be sent to my area; they were not built in Canada, Mr. Speaker. Yet the tariff cannot be removed because, they say, another stove manufacturing company possesses a number of patents in the same field and maybe intends to manufacture that commodity.
In my view, the tariff structure of this country has not been advantageous to the small manufacturer. Looking down the list, I find myself wondering whether the minister can explain why the tax is 35 per cent in some cases and 10 per cent or 5 per cent in others. Take, for example, preparations of cocoa and chocolate in powdered form. The British preferential tariff is 10 per cent, the most favoured nation tariff is 10 per cent, and the general tariff is 35 per cent. What protection are we seeking? It does not seem likely to me that we are competing in growing cocoa.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Processing.


Mr. Peters:: I don't know. Maybe Cadbury makes it up and sends it somewhere. My point is that it would be interesting to look into the background of some of these things, to consider them in relation to their effect in Canada on the prosperity of the manufacturing industry, especially in areas which are employment-intensive. Manufacturers in this country find themselves obliged, at least in the initial stages, to import some of the material they require. We might find that the Customs Tariff Act was operating to the advantage of firms outside Canada rather than to the benefit of our own companies. I say so for this reason: if Shell, for instance, does not manufacture a product in Canada, the company can manufacture it in the United States or IndoChina or somewhere else. For Shell to
October 26, 1976

We should also examine the question of the purchase of men and women's clothing and children's outer clothing. Is there a Canadian-made man's raincoat on the market today, or even a few? Why not? They have been pushed off the domestic market by well-made imports. These imports are not the shoddy goods they were at one time when cheapness and shoddiness were synonymous. Another problem has joined the two problems of inflation and unemployment, and that is intensive trade. Three of the four feared horsemen are now riding hard on the horizon. What will the fourth be, and where will the Canadian economy be when it arrives?
These remarks are rather wide-ranging, I admit, Mr. Speaker. We could examine the schedules in detail, but we will do that at committee stage. I think these proposals, minor as they are in themselves, should be considered carefully by the minister. I hope he will invite his colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien), to examine the situation with him. Perhaps he could also consult the Minister of Agriculture about a national food policy: are we going to have a cheap food policy, or a dear food policy? If it is to be a dear food policy, what will be done about cheaper imports? These are the problems we face, and I must underline their seriousness to hon. members.
With these remarks, Mr. Speaker, I trust we have set the tone of this debate and that this House will give serious attention to these problems, particularly the third one I mentioned. It is not something that is over the horizon; it is with us today and has been with us for a considerable length of time, but I regret that outside of some symbolic gestures, such as the trip of the Prime Minister to Japan, it does not seem to have been recognized. Perhaps something will come out of his visit to the Common Market. These gestures mean that we in the House of Commons, and our counterparts in the other place, must turn our attention to the solution of the problems. Unless we solve them, the hope expressed in the motion on which we voted earlier this afternoon is mere puffery, a figment of someone's imagination and dangerous demagogy at worst, because there is nothing with which to pay.
We cannot look after the social structures of this country unless we have a strong economy on which to base them. At the moment, the economy is not strong and it is not getting stronger. Unless we take drastic steps we will have much greater difficulty in the near future than we have had in the past.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the previous speaker that our economy is not strong and it is not getting much stronger. I disagree, however, with his contention that we can solve this problem with additional changes to the Customs Tariff arrangements. I was not able to ascertain whether he favoured a closed market or an open market, but I agree that for years we have played with this Customs Tariff question. It may turn out to be the deciding factor in what happens to our developing industries in Canada.
Customs Tariff
I also agree with him that we must develop a more labourintensive industrial strategy for the country, but if it is not developed on a sound basis we will be in serious trouble. We must realize the dangers of closing off our border and providing the kind of protection that would allow the development of inefficient domestic industries. In the end, the cost would be greater than the advantages.
In the years that I have been a member of parliament it has become apparent to me that there are two areas of the Canadian economy of which members have no knowledge and over which we have no control. The first of these is freight rates. It has been said that in order to do anything about freight rates we would have to bring an expert in from the United States because we do not have anyone who understands the tariff and freight structure involved in moving goods about this country.
The second area is the Customs Tariff. Of the thousands and thousands of tariffs we have, it seems to me that any changes made to them are almost entirely made at the wish of the civil servants who administer them. I shall cite an example from my constituency, Mr. Speaker. A small, innovative company holds patents on a number of processes in its field and qualified for a DREE grant. As an aside, I received an invitation from the patent office to a celebration on the issue of the millionth patent in this country. Some of these patents have been valuable and show our ability to develop industrial processes and items.
Going to the Tariff Board is something like going to China, Mr. Speaker: 1 choose China because I do not understand anything about its character structure or language, and our tariff structure is something like that. This company asked for the removal of duty on a certain kind of glue imported from the United States. The Tariff Board sought outside opinion and eventually turned down the application because Shell claimed they knew how to make the glue and would make it some time in the future. Because it might be made in Canada in future, the duty could not be removed. The glue is an expensive part of the covering used on flake-board in this country. Interestingly, some companies were buying the flake-board from manufacturers in Portland, Oregon, and shipping the finished product to major television and stereo manufacturers in New York. But the Tariff Board could not see merit in reducing or removing the tariffs which drove up the price of this product. Consequently, the particular company of which I am thinking made less money and was less competitive than similar companies making the finished product in other countries. This sort of thing happens all the time.
Who will correct the situation? Nobody will, apparently. Nobody, including the minister, will talk to the people on the Tariff Board. The minister is a smart man; he has learned another language, but I do not think he can talk in tariffese, or whatever you may call the language spoken by the people on the Tariff Board. They do not understand the problem. They merely look at the thousands of commodities for which

October 26, 1976
Customs Tariff
further ahead. Other countries specify that financial documentation shall be of a special form and in one language, and they will be handled through certain specified financial institutions.
One can be as cute as one wants in non-tariff barriers: it is like punching a pillow. Therefore, it is quite easy for these various countries to impose quotas or introduce non-tariff barriers, and Canada does it, too. We negotiate quota restrictions with, shall we say, a big club. In the field of quota restrictions on textiles we are acting like every other country in the word. There is not a country in the world which does not protect its textile industry. The only industry which usually gets greater protection is the agricultural industry, and here in Canada that is certainly the case. My colleagues will tell us just how far we go to protect our agricultural industry. It is not a matter of whether the tariff is high or low; it is a question of whether there is actually a national food policy.
It may be suggested that I am straying some distance from the Customs Tariff, but I am not. Second reading, particularly of a bill to amend the Customs Tariff, is the appropriate time to discuss whether there should be a continued reduction of rates or a temporary increase which may become a permanent increase; whether there should be quota restrictions, which have been resorted to by the Minister of Agriculture with regard to meat; or whether there should be quota restrictions which are negotiated with a number of third world countries with regard to synthetic textiles.
In outlining the problem, I am not going to say that I have a solution, but there is a situation with regard to Canadian manufacturers and Canadian supplier and it is the responsibility of the government to respond. But there has been a deafening silence from the ranks of the government. It is no answer to ask what we should do. Hon. members opposite have prided themselves on the fact that the Canadian people have put their confidence in them. Well, let them assume their responsibilities. Liberal governments have been in office now for 13 years and the problem of trade imbalances on the commodity side has been ever present. There has been the odd year when there has been a trade surplus, but those where the years when we were exporting petroleum, natural gas, iron ore and semi-processed nickel in vast and increasing quantities.
The Liberals have been the ones who have created the big surplus on the commodities side, but let us deal with labourintensive commodities. Let us deal with Canadians in small towns. It is not big cities like Toronto, Montreal, Edmonton, Vancouver, Winnipeg, Calgary or Hamilton which face the major problems. I invite hon. members, particularly hon. members from the province of Quebec and from small communities in Ontario, to tell us at great length the difficulties occasioned by the closing of this plant or that business employing 60 to 100 employees. These are things which knock the heart out of those communities.
We are at the core of these problems, but how do we handle them? Should the answer be to offer palliatives? Is the answer to offer grants? Is the answer to keep pumping hundreds of

millions of dollars through a DREE program, which is just like putting sand into a sack which is full of holes? What good does it do to pump into a town a few hundred thousands dollars to, so to speak, rehabilitate a business or establish a business which goes out of operation in three years time? There has to be a much more fundamental attack on the problem. We can have the best commodities, the best machinery, the best clothes and the best shoes, but if we cannot sell them either abroad or at home we cannot build enough shelves upon which to store them and we do not have enough money to finance all that inventory.
I challenge hon. members to listen not only to other hon. members in this House but also to other Canadians who are equally concerned about this problem. Let us hear from newspaper editors who are all too ready to provide quick solutions and advice. Let us hear from academics in universities who are also quick to tell parliament, and particularly the government, how to do its business. All Canadians must participate in solving this problem.
We have been caught up in a fight against inflation. In budget debates going back to the early 1970s, and even before, I and my colleagues have spoken about the dangers of inflation and how it was a real cancer which has rooted into the Canadian economic body. Thank goodness I have the speeches on record; it is not a matter of merely saying, "I told you so". Our warnings were brushed aside and pooh-poohed. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that we lived in the best of all possible worlds. Where are we today? We have gone through a violent spasm with regard to inflation, and we are not over it by a long shot.
In addition to inflation we have an unemployment problem. I would like to hear suggestions from members of the New Democratic Party and others who profess a professional interest in unemployment other than raking leaves. We can all rake leaves at minimum wages, but we get nowhere. One can say that investment can be directed to produce anything, but unless those goods and services which are produced are bought, and unless they are produced at economic and competitive prices, the whole exercise is a sham and a hypocrisy. We want to hear about solutions now. I ask hon. members to offer suggestions, because centred on these tariff changes we are looking at problems of international trade. Let us remember that international trade is not just selling goods abroad.
There is another item with regard to international trade, and that is the matter of imports. I referred to people in the lower mainland of British Columbia driving across the border to buy their groceries. I am sure that the same is being done in the Windsor-Detroit area and everywhere along the United States border where there are major shopping areas close by. There is presently a constant drive by Canadians to buy on the other side of the border at worth-while prices. That is lost business; it is all imports. Maybe it is a good thing to be able to buy Dare biscuits manufactured in Surrey, British Columbia, at 20 cents per pound cheaper in Bellingham, Washington, but I think it is a problem that we have to tackle.
October 26, 1976

particular connotation with regard to the expectations of this government. Perhaps they think that by lowering this tariff item they might establish better relations with the United States.


Mr. Paproski:: Do you like Jimmy Carter, Don? Is that what it is?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I like them all.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Many of my colleagues have indicated to me that they wish to speak on particular items. Several speeches will be made, for instance, in respect of meat and meat products, fruits and vegetables, textiles and certain types of machinery. But basically I say to the minister and to members of this House that concern has been expressed with increasing tempo by leaders in industry and business and even by responsible trade union officials who experience a great deal of apprehension and discomfort at Canada's trade position today, particularly with respect to manufactured goods and semi-processed goods, by reason of the fact that Canada has an increasing deficit in its commodity account.
Serious predictions are being made by people who know, people who are in the export business, that our position will worsen a great deal. The only commodities that have continued at a high level have been raw materials, petroleum and petroleum products and extractive, primary products. They are not the ones that provide a high labour content in this country. One may wonder why we have a nagging and persistent high level of unemployment in this country in particular areas. The primary reason is the decline in the actual volume of goods- because inflation has many victims elsewhere-that are sold not only abroad but right here in Canada, arising out of Canadian manufacturing and processing. We have figures, and my colleagues can speak in greater detail and with more knowledge on this than I can, but I think I should outline our stand with regard to international trade.
The minister has not spoken to us about what the government has foreseen with regard to the trade development pattern, not as of yesterday but in the three or four years during which we saw inflation rise at a gallop. The government took the rather extraordinary flip-flop step of imposing controls about a year ago. I wish the minister would listen to colleagues from other regions in the country, members representing areas on the Pacific coast, for instance. I wish he would listen to the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) with regard to the price of groceries in the lower mainland of British Columbia. Where are people shopping in that region? They are going across to the United States where they can save up to 40 per cent on groceries.


William Arnold Peters: Is there no duty on groceries?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There is duty on certain groceries coming back to Canada, but on a $70 purchase it is about $1.50, when already $20 to $25 has been saved. It is peanuts. They provide for peanuts in this bill. The point that I
Customs Tariff
want to emphasize is the rapid escalation in wages in this country, not only wages of manufacturers producing goods but wages of management and executive salaries. These are all expenses added to the cost of goods and services. It is not just the man who is on the lathe whose wages have gone up, or the wages of the truck driver. It is also front-office salaries.
We have also seen tax and utility bills from the municipalities. Municipal taxes go up by fantastic amounts. Even last year municipalities increased fees by hundreds of percentage points in the belief that they were not bound by controls. Some people have lost their sense of proportion. That applies not only to those on the workbench; it applies also to government administrators at all levels in this country. Here, at the federal government level, we have departments exempting themselves from AIB guidelines. For instance, we see officials of the Ministry of Transport increasing fees to a level far in excess of any guidelines. All these increases can be seen in the increased costs. They are translated into the price of goods that we sell abroad and the price of goods we sell to our Canadian consumers. Is it any wonder that we are now finding more intense competition from suppliers abroad, imports in traditional Canadian markets, in foodstuffs, wearing apparel, manufactured goods, from distant corners of the world?
We have keener competition from the United States, from Japan and the very able manufacturing industry in Taiwan. We sit here crying in our beer about it. Every day there are delegations and trade associations which come to parliament to see the government. They want help in selling textiles, shoes, electronics or call for restrictions and quotas. We see delegations from the agricultural industry as well. I should like to see where we do not have supply management and restrictions. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is the greatest one for imposing restrictions on imports. Why is that? For example, when medium eggs in Bellingham, Washington, are selling at 66 cents, the Egg Marketing Board puts them on the market at 89 cents. Does it cost that much more in Canada to produce a dozen eggs?
We talk about Canada facing a dilemma. It is here that we are facing it. On the one hand there was the Kennedy round of some years ago which resulted in a number of reductions in tariffs. These are rates to which Canada adhered but, like a foolish virgin, we entered the league and said "Yes, we will reduce many of our customs rates." But other countries, many of them our major trading partners, particularly in Europe, resort to non-tariff barriers. So it is downright foolishness to think that we would gain by a reduction in certain rates. It is naive, because Britain, for instance, does not have to do anything; it can lower its rates on the importation of generators, something which Canadian manufacturers are well able to do. But let a Canadian manufacturer go to the electricity board in the United Kingdom to get the specifications on which to tender: the board replies that on instruction from the government, tenders are restricted to the sufficient number of British manufacturers in existence. Canadian manufacturers cannot even get the specs to tender, but Britain could have lowered the customs rate, and likely did, yet Canada is not any

October 26, 1976
Customs Tariff
herring to 10 per cent, from 5 per cent, which is tariff item 12200-1. The purpose of this change is to correct a printing error that occurred when the budget papers were being prepared.
The second change is an amendment to tariff item 69605-1 which provides free entry for a wide range of goods including scientific preparations imported by hospitals and other institutions. The provision for scientific preparations had been restricted to preparations used directly in scientific research. However, a recent Tariff Board decision had the effect of broadening the interpretation of this provision to the point where virtually all preparations used by hospitals and other institutions would be entitled to duty-free entry. Many of these preparations are available from Canadian producers. The amendment will restore the coverage of this item to that which prevailed before the Tariff Board decision. These changes came into effect on October 14, the day following the tabling of the new ways and means motion.
The principal provision of this bill will continue, until June 30, 1977, a number of the temporary reductions which were first introduced as an anti-inflationary measure in the budget of February 19, 1973, and which had been scheduled to expire on June 30 of this year. Several food products have been added to the list of items on which temporary tariff cuts were in force prior to June 30. These include fresh pork, ham, bacon, macaroni and other pasta products. In addition, deeper cuts than those previously in force have been made on certain canned meats.
I should mention, however, that tires, tubes and scissors have been dropped from the list because it was judged that the tariff reductions previously in force were causing serious problems for Canadian producers and adversely affecting employment in Canada. The tariff cuts on these products were simply allowed to expire, as previously scheduled, on June 30, 1976. If it should turn out that the temporary tariff cuts on any of the products, particularly with regard to imported meat products, that remain in the package are causing genuine hardship to Canadian producers or workers, there is authority in the bill to restore tariff protection to previous levels by order in council prior to the proposed new expiry date of June 30, 1977.
In the food sector, reductions are being continued on such products as raw and refined sugar, certain fresh and processed vegetables, a number of fish products and prepared cereal foods and biscuits. In the non-food sector, reductions are being maintained on such products as drugs and pharmaceutical products, kitchen and dinnerware, plumbing fixtures, hand-tools, photographic equipment and sporting goods. The temporary reductions proposed in this bill affect imports of consumer goods valued at about $1.6 billion in terms of 1975 imports. Close to half of these are in the food sector, about $727 million worth.
As was mentioned in the budget speech, the continuation of these temporary tariff cuts until June 30, 1977, should not prejudice our position in the multilateral trade negotiations. The reductions are temporary and they will not be the base from which we will be negotiating in Geneva. The bill also

provides for the introduction of a number of miscellaneous tariff changes. I think it would be fair to say that the most significant of these miscellaneous amendments is the introduction of tariff item 42701-1. This new item provides for the withdrawal from Britain and Ireland of the 2V4 per cent British preferential tariff on compressor sets and electricity-generating sets. Commencing on May 26, the day following the budget, the most favoured nation tariff of 15 per cent became applicable. Remission of the duty will still be allowed, however, under the machinery program in respect of any sets which are not available from Canadian production.
The tariff on this machinery is being increased because Canadian manufacturers were finding it increasingly difficult to compete against imports over the 2'h per cent tariff. A number of major contracts for this kind of machinery are expected to be let in the next few years, and the government decided that inasmuch as we are no longer obliged to accord preferential tariff rates to Britain and Ireland following their joining the European Community, the time had come to provide Canadian manufacturers of compressors and generating sets with the same level of protection against imports from these sources as they receive against imports from other countries. The study of the tariffs on other machinery which was announced in the budget speech is now well under way. Officials of the Department of Finance have solicited the views and comments of interested Canadian firms on the pros and cons of continuing the preferential rates for such machinery.
The other miscellaneous tariff changes proposed in the bill are designed to facilitate imports. They include provision for the continued duty-free entry, on a temporary basis, of aircraft and aircraft engines and of certain printing plates and irrigation equipment. A number of new tariff items are being introduced to provide free entry for such goods as low-protein and protein-free products and other special dietary foods required by persons afflicted with hereditary metabolic diseases, and-this is of particular interest to the petroleum sector-computer tapes containing seismic data. Finally, it is proposed to amend the wording of several existing tariff items either for purposes of clarification or to broaden the coverage.
This is by way of introduction of the bill. We will have an opportunity to look into the items in committee of the whole. I shall look forward to questions by members and will do my best to answer them.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, under normal circumstances one would have expected to deal with the changes not long following the budget debate when matters which had been discussed during the budget debate were still germane in the minds of members. In the interval, however, many months have passed and there have not been many great changes. Shall we say that there is no great value in getting overly excited about this particular bill? It may be a pure accident-and there, again, we would have to be advised by the minister's officials as to what they meant-but bearing in mind the electoral contest taking place to the south of us, there is a change in item 1805-1. It is the reduction in the tariff on peanut butter. I am wondering whether that has any
October 26, 1976

2.	No.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-COMMISSIONING OF WAR ARTISTS
Mr. McKinnon: With reference to the answer to Question No. 5,714 of the First Session of the 30th Parliament, which stated in part that four artists participated in the Canadian Armed Forces Civilian Artists Programme (CAFCAP) from 1968 to 1975 (a) what are the artists' names (b) how much was each paid?


Hon. Barney Danson (Acting Minister of National Defence):: (a) Mr. Richard Nevitt; Mr. Peter Spuzak; Mr. William Houstoun; Mr. William Johnson, (b) These artists were not paid. There were no costs other than those shown in part 1 of question No. 5,714 published in Hansard No. 335 page 15078. dated July 6. 1976.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-PERSONNEL STRENGTH AS OF JULY 1, 1976
Mr. McKinnon: What was the total (a) regular military (b) reserve (c) civilian strength of the Department of National Defence as of July 1, 1976?


Barnett Jerome Danson: (a) 78,114; (b) 21,153; (c) 39,510 (This includes 7,103 term employees).


GIFTS-VISIT OF PRIME MINISTER TO LATIN AMERICA
Mr. Reynolds: What were the gifts, and what was the cost of each, the Prime Minister took to (a) Cuba for Premier Castro and any other Cuban dignitaries (b) Mexico for President Luis Echeverria Alverez and any other Mexican dignitaries (c) Venezuela for President Carlos Andres Perez and any other Venezuelan dignitaries and, in each case, how many gifts were received by the Prime Minister and Mrs. Trudeau while on such visits?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: In so far as the Prime Minister's Office is concerned, the Prime Minister received six substantial gifts.


CLOSURE OF DURHAM MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
Mr. Beatty: 1.	Has any request been received from the Government of Ontario for permission to amend the Memorandum of Agreement, dated March 3, 1958 between the federal and Ontario governments as the agreement relates to Durham Memorial Hospital?
2.	Does the government consider the agreement still valid and binding on both parties?
3.	Would the closure of Durham Memorial Hospital be affected in any way by the Memorandum of Agreement?
4.	Has the government made any representations respecting the future of hospitals in Ontario threatened with closing and, if so, what is the nature of such representations?
5.	What is the government's contribution to the operation of hospitals in Ontario (a) in dollars (b) as a percentage of the total cost?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Please see answer to Parliamentary Enquiry number
Customs Tariff
5,747 of the last session, tabled on July 5, 1976 (Hansard Volume 119, Number 334, page 15016).


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 578 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
[ Text]


ART LAING BRIDGE
Mr. Reynolds: 1.	What is the name and occupation of all persons invited to the opening of the Art Laing Bridge?
2.	How many were present from (a) the Department of Transport (b) other government departments and what are their names and positions?
3.	How many hours were the (a) northbound (b) southbound lanes of the Bridge closed and for what reason?
4.	What was the cost of the reception at the Airport Hyatt?
5.	Who on the Minister of Transport's Ottawa staff attended the opening of the Bridge and what was their method of transportation to and from Vancouver?
Return tabled.


Ralph Goodale: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: that Bill C-15, to amend the Customs Tariff, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-15 is intended to implement the proposed tariff changes which were before the House at the conclusion of the last session in the form of Bill C-95. That bill was based on the notice of ways and means motion which was tabled with the budget of May 25, 1976. As the bill had not been passed when parliament prorogued on October 12, the proposed tariff amendments were reintroduced in a new notice of ways and means motion on October 13. The present bill, which was given first reading on October 22, flows from that motion.
Only two changes are being made to the May 25 motion. The first is a provision which will restore the rate on canned

October 26, 1976
Order Paper Questions
8.	To date, distribution, mainly on request, has been as follows: Senators and Members of Parliament: 35 per cent; Federal Departments: 29 per cent; Provincial Governments: 13 per cent; Federal Crown Corporations: 8 per cent; Municipal Governments: 5 per cent; Private Institutions: 4 per cent; Universities: 4 per cent; International: 1 per cent; General Public: 1 per cent.
9.	Four thousand three hundred eighty-eight English and 1,100 French copies were produced. To date 1,617 English copies and 752 French copies have been distributed as outlined in 8 above.
10.	Actual recorded costs total $27,293.50.
11.	Vote	1-Privy	Council-Program	Expenditures
1975-76.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-PERSONNEL AND BILINGUALISM
Mr. Patterson: 1.	Have any Canadian Armed Forces personnel trained in France in the past Five years and, if so (a) how many in each year (b) at what cost (c) how long did the training last?
2.	What percentage of the officer positions in the Department of National Defence are designated (a) bilingual (b) unilingual English (c) unilingual French?
3.	Where does officer training in French take place?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1. (a) and (c).
	Number of	Length of
Year	Personnel	Training1971/72	1	2 years1972/73	2	2 weeks1	9 months1973/74	1	2 years3	2 weeks1974/75	1	2 weeks1975/76	1	2 years4	2 years1976/77	2	2 weeks
(b) $110,000.
2.	(a), (b) and (c) No officer positions have been designated, however, they have been identified as follows: Bilingual, 33.8 per cent; English Essential, 64.1 per cent; French Essential, 1.3 per cent; Either/or, 0.7 per cent.
3.	Canadian Forces Training Facilities in: Chilliwack, British Columbia; Valcartier, Quebec; Borden, Ontario; Kingston, Ontario; Toronto, Ontario; St. Jean, Quebec.


CIL-EXPLOSIVES AND SHELL FILLINGS
Mr. McKinnon: Is the Canadian Industries Limited plant in Valleyfield, Quebec, which manufactures explosives and shell fillings for the Canadian Armed Forces, closing this summer and, if so, what are the government's plans to meet this contingency?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: The Canadian Industries Limited plant in Valleyfield, Quebec has been closed since late February 1976 due to strike action by process workers. The government has contracts with the Company for both propellant and explosives. At the completion of the current propellant contract, the Company has announced that it will discontinue propellant manufacture at the Valleyfield site. Unless other arrangements can be made for an alternate Canadian source, Canadian propellant requirements will be procured from outside of Canada. Procurement of explosives will continue from the CIL plant. However, should the labour dispute not be resolved in a time frame to meet our contract delivery schedules, it may be necessary to procure some of this material outside of Canada.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-NEGOTIATIONS WITH INDIANS ON CAMP IPPERWASH
Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Are negotiations between the Department of National Defence and the Union of Ontario Indians and the Kettle Point Band, concerning compensation for Camp Ipperwash in an active state and, if so, what was the amount of the last offer made by DND and on what date was it offered?
2.	Has such an offer been refused by the Kettle Point Indian Band and, if so, on what date does the Department intend to make another offer?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1. Discussions are in progress to determine an acceptable basis for negotiating the claim submitted by the Band. Various amounts have been considered during the course of these discussions.
2.	Discussions are still in progress.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-PERSONNEL STRENGTH AS OF JUNE 1, 1976
Mr. McKinnon: As of June 1, 1976, what was the strength of the Canadian Armed Forces and how many civilians were employed by the Department of National Defence?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Military Personnel, 78,359. Continuing full-time Civilian Personnel, 32,375. Non-continuing Civilian Personnel, including Seasonal part-time employees and leave replacements, 6,510.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-CBC PROGRAM &quot;THE NATION'S BUSINESS&quot;
Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Was the programme entitled "The Nation's Business" shown on CBC on June 27, 1976 at approximately 11.15 p.m. produced by the Department of National Defence or by the Liberal Party?
2.	Was the Department reimbursed by CBC or by the Liberal Party for the use of the Department's film clips?
Hon. Barney Danson (Acting Minister of National
Defence): 1. Liberal Party.
October 26, 1976

4.	If no dividends have been paid and there has been no return paid CNR to date, is it anticipated that in the immediate future, i.e. within one year, an attractive return on investment will be paid and, if so, what rate of return is anticipated?
5.	Was the investment of CNR money in Intercast S.A. contingent on the successful takeover of Manchester Liners and/or Furness Withy and, if so, were such conditions met?


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The Management of Canadian National Railway Company advises as follows: 1. Yes.
2.	(a) CN holds equity in the form of Swiss Francs with a value of 217,300 Sw. fr. (Approximately $100,000 Canada). This represents 18 per cent of the total, (b) Acquisition was made on 31 October 1975.
3.	(a) The anticipated rate of return on the investment is not less than 15 per cent, (b) No dividends have been declared to date and it is not anticipated that profits will be distributed in the form of dividends in the near future.
4.	It is anticipated that the value of CN's equity in the CAST Group of companies will continue to increase.
5.	No.


LAND FILL COSTS-PORTS OF HALIFAX AND QUEBEC
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	(a) Who provided the 5.8 million cubic yards of land fill used at the Beauport Flats harbour facility at the Port of Quebec (b) what is the government's best estimate of the commerical value of the fill?
2.	Was a payment of any type made to any entity in respect of the fill and, if so, how much and to whom?
3.	Is the government aware that the Fenco report, Alternative 3, calls for 2,321,000 cubic yards of fill for the Fairview Cove harbour facility in the Port of Halifax-Dartmouth?
4.	Is the government aware that a price of $4.50 per cubic yard is indicated for fill for alternative 3 in the Fenco report?
5.	Did the federal-provincial task force studying the Fenco report produce a quantity or price different from those cited above and, if so, what were the revised Figures?
6.	On the basis of the task force report, if different from the Fenco findings, what is the government's best estimate of the land fill cost for the Fairview Cove site?
7.	Could the government justify treating land fill costs for the national harbours differently at the Port of Halifax- Dartmouth than at the Port of Quebec and, if so, in what way?


Marcel-Claude Roy: The National Harbours Board advises as follows:
1.	(a) The National Harbours Board provided the 5.8 million cubic yards of fill at Beauport Flats as spoil resulting from normal harbour dredging operations, (b) The land fill is evaluated at $1.50 per square foot for municipal taxation purposes.
2.	An amount of $4,490,130 was paid to Marine Industries Limited for dredging berths at Beauport Flats, and the spoil used to created land instead of being dumped in the river which would have resulted in increased costs.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes.
Order Paper Questions
5.	Yes. Quantity 2,250,000 cubic yards. Price $3.25 per cubic yard.
6.	$7,312,500 plus contingencies.
7.	Yes. The fill at the port of Quebec was obtained as a result of necessary dredging operations. The fill at the Port of Halifax-Dartmouth would be from a land source, acquired specifically for the proposed terminal.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES, 1975
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Was approval given to publish "Federal-Provincial Programs and Activities 1975" and, if so (a) on what date (b) by whom (c) for what purpose?
2.	What was the printing cost for each English and French edition?
3.	What was the cost in man-years and dollars to design, research, organize and edit the publication?
4.	How long did it take to assemble and publish the information?
5.	How much of the information already appears in other publications and documents?
6.	In deciding to publish the book, what persons or institutions was it felt were not aware through existing information services of material in the book, and which parts had not already been published in existing publications?
7.	What unit in the Bureau of Federal-Provincial Relations was responsible for this publication?
8.	What percentage of the distribution list was by request from (a) government departments (b) provincial government officials (c) researchers (d) members of the public, etc.?
9.	How many copies were printed and who received them?
10.	What was the total cost of publishing the document calculating all elements per volume in both official languages?
11.	In what vote in the estimates and for what year is the expenditure for the publication located?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1.	Approval was given to publish "Federal-Provincial Programs and Activities 1975", (a) on June 25, 1975, (b) by Mr. Gordon Robertson, Secretary to the Cabinet for Federal-Provincial Relations, in order to revise a dated publication of 1973. (c) The purpose of this publication is to make available information about federal-provincial programs, and especially about the transfer payments made by the federal government to the provinces.
2.	The printing cost for the English edition was $6,600.89, and $1,672.00 for the French.
3.	Nine-tenths of a man-year and $19,020.61.
4.	Nine months, from May, 1975 to January, 1976.
5.	Very little of the information is contained in its present form in other publications or documents.
6.	The information in the publication is of particular interest for purposes of work of the federal and provincial governments involved in federal-provincial consultations, negotiations and programs; municipal governments and their various sub-organizations; and to many agencies needing to have a comprehensive knowledge of the programs available to them through the federal-provincial system.
7.	The Studies and Research Group of the Federal-Provincial Relations Office was responsible for this publication.

Order Paper Questions


Marcel-Claude Roy: Total cost: $68,385.42.


OIL SPILL CLEAN-UP OF ST. LAWRENCE RIVER, BROCKVILLE, ONTARIO
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What has been the total cost to the taxpayers of the Canadian participation in the clean-up of the oil spill in the United States waters of the St. Lawrence River west of Brockville, Ontario in June of 1976?
2.	Have steps been taken to recover these funds from those responsible and (a) if so, what steps (b) if not, for what reason and will steps be taken?


Marcel-Claude Roy: 1. Canadian Coast Guard costs for the Nepco 140 spill approximate $850,000 but have not been tabulated in final form. These costs are not divided as being east or west of Brockville, but reflect clean-up along the entire Canadian border that was affected by this spill. Canadian Coast Guard activities were confined to Canadian waters and shoreline.
2. Canadian Coast Guard costs will be forwarded to the United States Coast Guard under the terms of the Joint Canada-United States Marine Pollution Contingency Plan for cost recovery, with the result that the Canadian taxpayer will not be financially responsible for this undertaking.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-AUTOMOBILES SHIPPED TO AND FROM EUROPE
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	For each year since 1970, how many automobiles belonging to service personnel were shipped (a) to (b) from Europe and the United Kingdom by the Department of National Defence?
2.	For each year, what number of automobiles were shipped through each Canadian port?
3.	Of the total automobiles shipped by the Department how many had origins or destinations in the Atlantic Region?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1. The entitlement to ship automobiles at public expense to or from Europe and the United Kingdom only became effective April 1, 1973. Therefore there is no data available for the period prior to that date, (a) 1973-74, 325;
1974-	75, 400; 1975-76, 371; (b) 1973-74, 977; 1974-75, 1,111;
1975-	76, 991.
2.	Montreal: 1973-74, Eastbound, 325; Westbound, 977;
1974-	75, Eastbound, 400; Westbound, 1,110; 1975-76, East-bound, 371; Westbound, 964; Halifax: 1973-74, Eastbound, Nil; Westbound, Nil; 1974-75, Eastbound, Nil; Westbound, 1;
1975-	76, Eastbound, Nil; Westbound, 20; Vancouver: 197374, Eastbound, Nil; Westbound, Nil; 1974-75, Eastbound, Nil; Westbound, Nil; 1975-76, Eastbound, Nil; Westbound, 7.
3.	Automobiles originating in Atlantic Region: 1973-74, 47; 1974-75, 86; 1975-76, 77. Automobiles destined to Atlantic Region: 1973-74, 35; 1974-75, 63; 1975-76, 58.


MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL SUPPORT IN NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What is the government's best estimate of the dollar level of funding provided by the Medical Research Council of Canada to recipients within the Province of Nova Scotia for each year since its inception in (a) 1975 dollars (b) actual dollars at the time the money was spent?
2.	Will any benefit accrue to the medical community of Nova Scotia, and particularly that of metropolitan Dartmouth and Halifax as a result of recently announced changes in the levels of funding provided to the Medical Research Council of Canada and, if so, what are they?
Hon. Marc	Lalonde (Minister of	National Health and
Welfare): 1. Medical Research Council support for research in		
Nova Scotia:	In 1975 dollars ($000's) using as inflator the Implicit Price Index of Gross	In currentYear	National Expenditure	dollars ($000's)1961-62	333	1661962-63	344	1741963-64	448	2311964-65	590	3111965-66	749	4081966-67	1,095	6231967-68	855	5061968-69	1.159	7081969-70	1,447	9231970-71	1,316	8781971-72	1,419	9771972-73	1.275	9221973-74	1,289	1,0181974-75	1,243	1,1221975-76	1,542	1,542
2. In so far as medical scientists in the health science faculties of Dalhousie University in Halifax are concerned, six additional investigators will receive new grants and three investigators holding grants for only part of the current year will receive unconditional grants for the full twelve month period, thus bringing the total number of investigators receiving unconditional grants to the same level as in 1975-76. In addition, the General Research Grants to the deans of medicine, dentistry and pharmacy have been increased.


CNR'S INTEREST IN INTERCAST S.A.
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Is CNR represented on the Board of Directors of Intercast S.A.?
2.	(a) How much equity does CNR hold in this company in terms of dollars and as a percentage of the total (b) on what date was such equity taken?
3.	(a) What is the anticipated rate of return on the investment in the First year (b) have any dividends been paid to date and, if not, on what date will they be paid?
October 26, 1976

(d) With regard to part 3 (a) of Question No. 3,140: 16 prosecutions under the Narcotic Control Act and the Food and Drugs Act for the Department of National Health and Welfare. Two prosecutions under the Income Tax Act for the Department of National Revenue-Taxation. With regard to part 3 (b) of Question No. 3,140: It is not in the tradition of a non-political public service to disclose the names and addresses of officials who performed tasks in the course of their duties.
Note: The legal fees paid to Mr. N. D. Dixon of Smith Falls, Ontario for the fiscal year 1974-75 were reported as totalling $15,585.53 in the reply to Question No. 2,232. Further research has revealed a clerical error and the correct amount is $5,585.53.


LEGAL WORK DONE BY MR. N. D. DIXON, SMITHS FALLS, ONTARIO
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the government officially aware that Mr. N. D. Dixon, a lawyer in Smiths Falls, Ontario, named in the answer to Question No. 2,232 of the First Session of the 30th Parliament as having received government business, was President of the Leeds Liberal Association immediately prior to the time he received $15,585.53 worth of government legal business?
2.	Is it the policy of the government to reward those who have served as presidents of liberal associations on their retirement to the position of past president with government legal business?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: 1. Mr. N. D.
Dixon of Smith Falls, Ontario was first appointed a legal agent for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada in 1963. Mr. Dixon has been re-appointed as a legal agent at various times since 1963 in light of the competent manner in which he has carried out the mandates previously assigned to him. He was not re-appointed because of any position he may have held in any association or organization.
2. No.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-AIRCRAFT LOCATED AT SASKATOON AIRPORT
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	How many Department of National Defence aircraft have been located at any time this year at the Saskatoon Airport and, in each case (a) what were the type of aircraft (b) how long and for what reason were they there (c) are the aircraft in storage and, if so, for what purpose and for what reason are they at a non-military airport (d) have arrangements been made for their sale and (i) if so, which ones and when will the sales take place (ii) if not, why have they been removed from service?
2.	What is the (a) present value of each aircraft (b) total present value of all aircraft (c) total value of such aircraft when they were originally placed in Saskatoon (d) annual cost of (i) maintenance (ii) storage and any other costs (e) annual rate of depreciation involved?
3.	What plans does the government have for each aircraft?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1. 47. (a) Types of Aircraft: T33 Jet Trainer; Argus CP 107 Patrol; Tracker CP 121 Patrol; Otter CSR 123 Transport; Dakota CC 129 Transport, (b) The aircraft are in storage and have been there for periods ranging from seven
Order Paper Questions
months to two and one half years, (c) Yes. The aircraft are stored in DND facilities at the Saskatoon Municipal airport, (d) (i) and (ii). Eight Dakota and seven other aircraft have been declared surplus and reported to Crown Assets for disposal. The remainder of the aircraft are being held in storage to replace and refit operational aircraft with parts as required.
2.	(a), (b) and (c). No estimate can be determined as the aircraft in most cases are over 25 years old. The value of the aircraft is in the replacements parts provided for operational aircraft, (d) (i) and (ii) $606,659. (e) Not applicable.
3.	The plans for the aircraft are shown under part I of this question.


USE OF GOVERNMENT OWNED AIRCRAFT
Mr. Cossitt: On or about Christmas 1968 or at any other time, did the present Minister of Transport have a government aircraft pick up personal friends, Dr. and Mrs. Bone and their son Michael, in Saskatoon, fly to Regina to pick up Mr. Tony Merchant, brother-in-law of the Minister and, then fly all those on board to Ottawa and, if so (a) for what reason (b) what was the total cost involved?


Marcel-Claude Roy: Records are not available prior to the fiscal year 1973-74.


USE OF GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT BY MINISTER OF TRANSPORT
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	During the month of May 1976, how many times did the Minister of Transport travel by government aircraft from Ottawa to Saskatoon and return?
2.	What was the (a) purpose and total cost to the taxpayer, in each case (b) total cost of the flights?
3.	Was one of the trips, in part, to include attendance at the general meeting of the Bar Association and, if so (a) did he attend this gathering and for how long (b) did he attend the evening banquet and, if not (i) for what reason (ii) has the Minister been made aware directly or indirectly, officially or unofficially, of annoyance expressed on the part of the Bar Association for his non-attendance at the banquet?


Marcel-Claude Roy: 1. Three.
2.	(a) Government business, (b) Usual for jetstar.
3.	No. The Minister did not plan to attend the Bar Association meeting but in a free hour he did attend, (a) About one hour, (b) No. (i) other commitments; (ii) the Minister has not been made aware directly or indirectly, officially or unofficially of any annoyance for his non-attendance; (iii) the Minister received some compliments for his attendance.


ADVERTISING PLACED BY THE GOVERNMENT DURING CESSATION OF AIR TRAVEL IN CANADA
Mr. Cossitt: October 26, 1976
Order Paper Questions
the Honourable John Turner, travelled at public expense by private railway car from Ottawa to Kenora, Ontario from July 31 to August 2, 1975, August 23 to 26, 1975 and August 24 to 26, 1974, what (a) was the exact purpose of each trip (b) were the reasons justifying this expenditure of public funds (c) are the names and addresses of any others on board during the trips?
2.	Did the Honourable John Turner own personal property in the Kenora area at the time of the trips and, if so, was the government officially aware of this?

Question No. 17-Mr. Cossitt:
1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 4,777 of the First Session of the 30th Parliament, which stated in part that the Minister of Supply and Services travelled at public expense by private railway car from Ottawa to Montreal on May 3, 1974 and from Ottawa to Mont-Joli, Quebec from May 9 to 12, 1975, will the Minister make public (a) the exact purpose of each trip (b) the names and addresses of any others on board the cars at any time (c) all the reasons justifying this expenditure of public funds (d) the number of service personnel on duty in the car on each occasion?
2.	Will the Minister make public this information and, if not, for what reason?

Question No. 18-Mr. Cossitt:
1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 4,777 of the First Session of the 30th Parliament, which stated in part that the former Minister of Manpower and Immigration and present President of the Treasury Board, travelled at public expense, by private railway car from Ottawa to Thunder Bay from June 5 to 8, 1975, will the Minister make public (a) the exact purpose of the trip (b) the names and addresses of any others on board the car at any time (c) all the reasons justifying this expenditure of public funds (d) the number of personnel on duty to operate the services in the car?
2.	Will the Minister make public this information and, if not, for what reason?
3.	In what constituency is Thunder Bay located?

Question No. 19-Mr. Cossitt:
1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 4,777 of the First Session of the 30th Parliament, which stated in part that the Minister of Finance, travelled at public expense, by private railway car from Ottawa to Sydney, Nova Scotia from August 2 to 12, 1975, will the Minister make public (a) the exact purpose of the trip (b) the names and addresses of any others on board the car at any time (c) all the reasons justifying this expenditure of public funds (d) the number of personnel on duty to operate the services in the car (e) a list of all stops en route and the purpose in each case?
2.	Will the Minister make public this information and, if not, for what reason?

Question No. 20-Mr. Cossitt:
1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 4,777 of the First Session of the 30th Parliament, which stated in part that the Minister of Communications, travelled at public expense, by private railway car from Ottawa to Montreal on July 31, 1974, will the Minister make public (a) the exact purpose of the trip (b) the names and addresses of any others on board the car at any time (c) all the reasons justifying this expenditure of public funds (d) the number of personnel on duty to operate the services in the car?
2.	Will the Minister make public this information and, if not, for what reason?

Question No. 21-Mr. Cossitt:
1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 4,777 of the First Session of the 30th Parliament, which stated that where Cabinet Ministers have used private railway cars at public expense, since April 1, 1974, the reason for such use was unknown by the Department of Transport, is it government policy to permit unlimited use of such cars by Ministers without any requirement that they state the purpose for such use or be required to justify the use for government business?
2.	Can the Minister of Transport justify expenditures of public funds for purposes stated to be unknown and, if so, in what manner?
3.	Does the President of the Treasury Board condone such expenditures of public funds by the Department of Transport for reasons stated to be unknown and, if so, for what reason?

Question No. 26-Mr. Cossitt:
1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 4,777 of the First Session of the 30th Parliament, which stated in part that the Minister of Justice travelled at public expense by private railway car from Ottawa to Winnipeg from November 11 to 14, 1974, will the Minister make public (a) the exact purpose of the trip (b) the names and addresses of any others on board the car at any time (c) all the reasons justifying this expenditure of public funds (d) the number of personnel on duty to operate the services in the car?
2.	Will the Minister make public this information and, if not, for what reason?

Question No. 27-Mr. Cossitt:
1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 4,777 of the First Session of the 30th Parliament, which stated in part that the Minister of Labour travelled at public expense by private railway car from Ottawa to Toronto from September 20 to 21, 1974 and from April 2 to 3, 1975, will the Minister make public (a) the exact purpose of the trips (b) the names and addresses of any others on board the cars at any time (c) all the reasons justifying this expenditure of public funds (d) the number of personnel on duty to operate the services in the cars?
2.	Will the Minister make public this information and, if not, for what reason?

Question No. 28-Mr. Cossitt:
1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 4,777 of the First Session of the 30th Parliament, which stated in part that the former President of the Treasury Board and present Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, travelled at public expense by private railway car from Ottawa to Sherbrooke from February 21 to 24, 1975 and from Ottawa to Quebec City from February 13 to 17, 1976, will the Minister make public (a) the exact purpose of each trip (b) the names and addresses of any others on board the cars at any time (c) all the reasons justifying this expenditure of public funds (d) the number of service personnel on duty in the car on each occasion?
2.	Will the Minister make public this information and, if not, for what reason?
3.	Has the Minister stated his desire to cut government expenditures and, if so, in what manner does he justify this expenditure of public funds?

Question No. 32-Mr. Cossitt:
1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 4,777 of the First Session of the 30th Parliament, showing private railway cars being used at public expense by Members of the Cabinet up to March 1, 1976, has further use been made of these cars by Members of the Cabinet to the date that the answer to this question is prepared and (a) if so, in each case (i) what is the name of the Minister (ii) what were the dates of use (iii) what was the point of origin, places visited and final destination (iv) what are the names of all persons on board at any time (v) how many service personnel were involved (vi) what was the cost of each trip (vii) what was the total cost of all trips (viii) will such use terminate immediately (b) if not, does this indicate a change in government policy resulting from previous questions on this subject?
2.	What was the date that the answer to this question was prepared?


LEGAL WORK DONE BY MR. N. D. DIXON OF SMITHS FALLS, ONTARIO
Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to Question No. 3,140 of the First Session of the 30th Parliament, which stated in part that the details of legal work done for the government by Mr. N. D. Dixon of Smiths Falls would be communicated to the Member for Leeds at a later date (a) for what reason has the information not been forthcoming (b) what departments are involved in compiling such information and on what date did they begin such work (c) has the compiling of the information been completed and, if so, (d) on what date will the government forward the requested information to the Member for Leeds?


Stanley Ronald Basford: In so far as the
Department of Justice is concerned: (a), (b) and (c) Through an administrative oversight, the question was not attended to.

listed in part 5 of this question; (d) In possession of the members listed in part 5 of this question.
The following reply applies to questions Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 26, 27, 28 and 32.


PRIVATE RAILWAY CARS
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 4,777 of the First Session of the 30th Parliament, which stated in part that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs travelled at public expense by private railway car between Ottawa and Vancouver from August 19 to September 3, 1975, will the Minister make public
(a)	the exact purpose of the trip (b) the names and addresses of all those on board the car during the trip (c) all the reasons justifying this expenditure of public funds (d) the reason it took 16 days to travel what is normally a three day journey (e) a list of all stops en route and the purpose in each case (0 the total number of miles travelled at the stated cost of $1.95 per mile (g) the number of personnel on duty to operate the services in the car?
2.	Will the Minister make public this information and, if not, for what reason?


Marcel-Claude Roy: Prior to 1959, varying numbers of rail cars have been owned or on loan from Canadian National Railways and were assigned to various Ministers and Departments. During 1959, the matter of rail car use was reviewed by the Government and it was decided that the cars be reduced in number to two for the use of any Members of Cabinet, by arrangement. This recommendation was accepted with two cars being returned to CN and the remaining two (along with the 2 car unit assigned to the Governor General) put under Transport Canada's jurisdiction and assigned to the Prime Minister and Minister of Transport respectively. Four car stewards presently share the required duties as two man teams on the four rail cars and constitute the major fixed cost along with basic supplies and maintenance such as: heating, cleaning, replacement of equipment, parts, etc. Any charges from the railways for special switching, food or train requirements are charged to the user of the car. On the basis of this decision by the Government in 1959 the cars, when not in use by the assigned Ministers, have been made available on a first come-first served basis for foreign dignitaries, Members of Cabinet and senior officials of the Canadian Transport Commission. Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railways issue passes for Ministers authorizing use of the rail car plus the two attendants. Any other persons on the cars are charged by the railway for first class passage (unless they hold railway passes in their own right). As with the CN and CP passes issued to Members of Parliament, the purpose of the trip has never been requested and Members and Ministers may exercise the use of their passes for whatever purpose they choose. Other than the first class charge for any passengers, the railways have traditionally hauled the four rail cars at no cost on regular train operations. This means that with most of the costs being of a fixed nature, there is very little difference in cost whether the cars are in use or on standby. The fact that accommodation and meeting rooms are not required is an additional incentive to use the cars rather than commercial facilities. It is necessary to maintain this small number of rail cars in Ottawa in any case for matters of state and the use therefore, by
Order Paper Questions
approved officials, becomes an efficient use of facilities that are already paid for. There is periodic assessment of the feasibility of hiring rail car stewards from the railway as required rather than paying annual salaries and to date it has been considerably more economical to pay annual salaries. The rail cars allow the necessary privacy required for working conditions while travelling and allow maintenance of the level of security needed for the Prime Minister and for foreign dignitaries (see page 8618 of Hansard for December 11, 1973). In addition to the security features and controlled working environment, there has traditionally been, in the use of these cars by the Government's most senior representatives, the recognition of their need to travel to various parts of the country as part of their responsibilities. The cars have never been restricted to any specific use other than during general election campaigns.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 4,777 of the First Session of the 30th Parliament, which stated in part that the former President of the Treasury Board and present Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce travelled at public expense by private railway car from Ottawa to Shawinigan, Quebec from December 30, 1975 to January 3, 1976, January 23 to January 26, 1976 and February 27 to March 1, 1976, will the Minister make public (a) the exact purpose of each trip (b) a list of any stops en route (c) the names and addresses of any others on board the car at any time (d) the number of personnel on duty to operate the services in the car?
2.	Has the Minister stated his desire to cut government expenditures and, if so, in what manner does he justify this expenditure of public funds?
3.	Will the Minister make public this information and, if not, for what reason?
4.	In what constituency is Shawinigan, Quebec located?

Question No. 13-Mr. Cossitt:
Will the government prohibit further use, by Cabinet Ministers at public expense, of private railway cars for personal travel in keeping with its announced programme of restraint and (a) if so, on what date will such prohibition begin
(b)	if not, for what reason?

Question No. 14-Mr. Cossitt:
1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 4,777 of the First Session of the 30th Parliament, which stated in part that the former Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and present Secretary of State for External Affairs travelled at public expense, by private railway car from Ottawa to London from November 14 to 16, 1975, will the Minister make public (a) the exact purpose of the trip (b) the names and addresses of any others on board the car at any time
(c)	all the reasons justifying this expenditure of public funds (d) the number of personnel on duty to operate the services in the car?
2.	Will the Minister make public this information and, if not, for what reason?

Question No. 15-Mr. Cossitt:
1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 4,777 of the First Session of the 30th Parliament, which stated in part that the Minister of Supply and Services travelled at public expense by private railway car from Ottawa to Quebec City from June 13 to 15, 1975, will the Minister make public (a) the exact purpose of the trip (b) the names and addresses of any others on board the car at any time (c) all the reasons justifying this expenditure of public funds (d) the number of personnel on duty to operate the services in the car?
2.	Will the Minister make public this information and, if not, for what reason?

Question No. 16-Mr. Cossitt:
1. With reference to the answer to Question No. 4,777 of the First Session of the 30th Parliament, which stated in part that the former Minister of Finance,

October 26, 1976
Order Paper Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: With regard to the question period, I have no intention of healing the hon. member's self-inflicted wound.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lawrence:: That is a great way to get out of the question period.


Mr. Wagner:: They will try it every day now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton has raised, by way of a point of order, the question as to whether or not the oral question period ought to take place. I take it from his remarks that there is no disagreement with the clear wording of Standing Order 15(2) which indicates that Routine Proceedings shall be taken up at 3 p.m. There could be no clearer language. The provisional orders under which we are operating at the present time state that Routine Proceedings shall be taken up at three o'clock or presumably as soon thereafter as possible. There is no disagreement with that. However, there has been a suggestion by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton that the House may be disposed to having a question period. That can only be done with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I did not hear any "no".


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM TABLING OF REFERENCE TO ADMINISTRATOR AND REPORT OF BOARD
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a reference to the administrator under the Anti-Inflation Act and a report from the Anti-Inflation Board under the Anti-Inflation Act.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I will speak clearly so that all may hear. The following questions will be answered today: 4, 11 to 21 inclusive, 26, 27, 28, 32, 35, 36, 47, 48, 49, 76, 109, 161, 170, 171, 175, 282, 368, 372 to 377 inclusive, 579 and 645.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Were materials purchased by Canadian Forces Base, Kingston on February 5, 1975, from Queen City Distributors Limited of Downsview, Ontario and, if so (a) was such material composed of various items for the making of Fibre glass pleasure sailboats (b) was the invoice number from Queen City Distributors Limited No. 08024 (c) what was the total cost of the material purchased and what is an itemized list of the material (d) who signed for receipt of such items (e) does the name M. M. Marshall appear on the invoice and, if so (i) what is his job designation or rank with the Canadian Armed Forces (ii) who authorized him to make the purchase?
2.	Was the Canadian Armed Forces reimbursed for the material purchased and, if so (a) who made such reimbursement (b) on what date (c) to whom was it made?
3.	Is it the policy of the Department of National Defence to allow the purchase of materials by the Canadian Armed Forces for use of officers for their own private purposes such as the construction of sailboats and, if so, who authorized such a policy and on what date?
4.	What are the general regulations pertaining to the purchase of materials by the Canadian Armed Forces that are used for private purposes by personnel?
5.	What are the (a) names (b) job designations of all members of the Armed Forces or civilian employees who took part in the construction of sailboats at Kingston?
6.	(a) How many such boats were constructed (b) who used the boats (c) who is now the owner of the boats (d) where are the boats now located?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1. yes; (a) Yes; (b) No; (c) Cost of Material, $775.75; List of Material: 10 oz Cloth Fibreglass, 125 yards; Resin, 45 gallons; Hardener for Resin, 18 lbs; Gel Coat Spray, 20 gallons; Yellow pigment, 9 lbs; Black pigment, 12 lbs; Mould release agent, 1 gallon; Acetone, 5 gallons, (d) Base Supply Officer, CFB Kingston, (e) Mr. Marshall's name appeared on the invoice, (i) Supervisor Local Procurement (CR 5) (ii) Base Procurement Officer
2.	Yes. (a) Base Supply Officer on behalf of the Canadian Forces Sailing Association; (b) April 11, 1975; (c) Receiver General of Canada.
3.	No.
4.	The general regulations as defined under Queen's Regulations and Orders Chapter 36, Section 1, Article 36.05 state that no material may be issued or used by an officer or man for private or other purposes unrelated to either the performance of military duty, recreational activity, or his status as a member of the Canadian Forces. The Canadian Forces Sailing Association established pursuant to Section 45 (1) of the National Defence Act is an approved recreational activity and as such is permitted to use certain approved DND facilities and materials to further the knowledge and training of its members.
5.	(a) and (b) Particulars of the members of the Canadian Forces Sailing Association who took part are as follows: Col. M. J. Braun, Commandant; Cdr. R. G. Ross, Base Technical Services Officer; LCol. B. F. Simons, Base Administrative Officer; Major M. G. DeGrandpre, Base Supply Officer; Capt. D. McCaw, Signals Officer; Maj. H. Dick, Retired.
6.	(a) six; (b) The members of the Canadian Forces Sailing Association listed in part 5 of this question; (c) The members
October 26, 1976

	Messrs.	
Smith	lowers	Whittaker(Churchill)	Wagner	WiseStanfield	Wenman	WoolliamsStewart	Whiteway	Yewchuk-85.(Marquette)	NAYS	
Messrs.	
Abbott	Dupont	MacdonaldAllmand	Dupras	(Rosedale)Anderson	Duquet	MacEachenAndras	Ethier	MacGuigan(Port Arthur)	Faulkner	MaineAndres	Fleming	Marceau(Lincoln)	Flynn	MartinAppolloni (Mrs.)	Foster	McRaeBaker	Fox	Milne(Gander-Twillingate)	Francis	MunroBasford	Gauthier	(Hamilton East)Bechard	(Ottawa-Vanier)	Nicholson (Miss)Begin (Miss)	Gillespie	O'ConnellBlais	Goodale	OlivierBlaker	Gray	ParentBlouin	Guay	PearsallBoulanger	(St. Boniface)	PennerBuchanan	Guay	PhilbrookBussi&res	(L6vis)	PinardCaccia	Guilbault	RailtonCampagnolo (Mrs.)	Harquail	RainesCampbell (Miss)	Herbert	Roberts(South Western Nova)	Holt (Mrs.)	RobinsonCaron	Isabelle	RompkeyChretien	Joyal	RooneyClermont	Kaplan	RoyCollenette	Lachance	(Timmins)Condon	Lajoie	RoyCorriveau	Landers	(Laval)Cot6	Lang	Sauve (Mrs.)Cullen	Langlois	SharpCyr	Laniel	SmithDanson	Leblanc	(Saint-Jean)Daudlin	(Laurier)	StewartDe Ban6	LeBlanc	(Cochrane)Demers	(Westmorland-Kent)	StolleryDionne	Lee	Tessier(Northumberland-	Loiselle	TurnerMiramichi)	(Saint-Henri)	WatsonDouglas	Lumley	Whelan(Bruce-Grey)	MacDonald	YanakisDrury	(Cardigan)	Young-106.[DOT]	(1500)


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. Presenting reports from standing and special committees.


Walter David Baker: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
[DOT]	(1510)


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order that I am raising, I hesitate but I must observe that this is an indication that this government cannot even organize "no".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Social Security


Walter David Baker: 1 am sure that even those who have catapulted themselves into the position in which they found themselves a few moments ago would-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton raises a point of order. I would like to hear him develop it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I want to assure my friends on the other side that I was really only clearing my throat.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: We can take a joke.


Mr. Clark:: You are a joke.


Walter David Baker: In any event, as a result of what just happened here in the House today and Your Honour's call for the next item of business, it has become apparent that you have passed over the normal question period. 1 am sure it would not lie in the mouth of the government House leader, even in the face of the ineptitude that we have just seen, to deny the people of Canada and their elected representatives this opportunity to question the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear hear!


Walter David Baker: I assume it would be of interest to hon. members on both sides of the House to learn what may or may not be revealed in the question period today, and of interest to some of the ministers as well. In view of the rules which Your Honour has interpreted by your actions-an interpretation with which I cannot quarrel-I wonder if the question could be put to the House as to whether there might be unanimous consent-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Walter David Baker: -for us to follow the normal parliamentary practice and have a question period.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: No.


Walter David Baker: I mean no disrespect when I ask this of the government, because it has become apparent to everyone in this House and the country that the legislation which awaits the care of this House is not so important as to deprive this House of its privilege of the question period.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I just want to advise my hon. friend that we on this side of the House have welcomed the opportunity to take a stand for fiscal responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 26, 1976
Social Security
result of the aforementioned strike on October 5, 1976 the striking employees received $450 each on the basis of being paid time and a half on the following Saturday, double time on the following Sunday, and triple time on the following Monday in order to clear up the backlog, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds):
That this House direct the Postmaster General to make a statement on motions on the effectiveness of sanctions imposed by this government on employees who engage in illegal strikes.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I move under the provisions of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis):
That this House express its appreciation to the chief government whip and his deputy for the splendid arrangement of the list of government speakers in the throne speech debate which gave those who have lost hope of elevation to the cabinet such prominence, and requests that a list of those with similar views who were unable to speak because of the limited time be tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that this motion be accepted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the many speeches being made these days, especially by cabinet ministers, calling for equality between men and women, I feel it is a matter of urgent and pressing necessity that something be done about the inequality suffered by widows with respect to their pensions. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House urges the government to review all the employee pension plans that come under its jurisdiction, and to take the necessary steps to provide forthwith that in all cases the pensions of widows (or of widowers where

applicable) will be not less than 70 per cent of the contributor's pension, and that the eventual goal be a full 100 per cent pension for either survivor.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There being unanimous consent for the presentation of such a motion, I therefore put the question. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
The motion (Mr. Knowles, (Winnipeg North Centre)) was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 5)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Alexander	Ellis	La SalleAlkenbrack	Elzinga	LavoieAllard	Epp	LawrenceAndre	Fairweather	Leggatt(Calgary Centre)	Firth	MacDonald (Miss)Baker	Forrestall	(Kingston and the(Grenville-Carleton)	Fraser	Islands)Bawden	Gauthier	MacKayBeatty	(Roberval)	MacquarrieBeaudoin	Gilbert	MasniukBenjamin	Gillies	McCainBlackburn	Grafftey	McKenzieBrewin	Halliday	McKinleyBrisco	Hargrave	McKinnonBroadbent	Hees	MuirCaouette	Hnatyshyn	Neil(Villeneuve)	Hogan	NielsenClark	Holmes	Nowlan(Rocky Mountain)	Johnston	NystromClarke	Jones	Orlikow(Vancouver Quadra)	Knowles	O'SullivanCossitt	(Winnipeg	PaproskiCrouse	North Centre)	PetersDarling	Knowles	ReynoldsDiefenbaker	(Norfolk-Haldimand)	RitchieDionne	Lambert	Rondeau(Kamouraska)	(Bellechasse)	RynardDouglas	Lambert	Schumacher(Nanaimo-Cowichan-	(Edmonton West)	ScottThe Islands)	Laprise	Skoreyko
Tuesday, October 26, 1976