1976-12-06

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter that I think is urgent. On November 18 the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) had this to say in the House about the stockpiling of sand for rent at Vancouver international airport: "We are saving the sand in case we need it", thereby indicating that preloading may have commenced regarding the $500 million project for a third runway at that airport.
In view of the fact that the environment subcommittee for the Vancouver international airport, which was formed by his predecessor, has recommended a moratorium on airport expansion, damage from dredging being one of the reasons, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin):
That the subject of the proposed shorter runway be referred to the said ecological subcommittee for study and that all dredging from Borrow Site No. 3 cease immediately.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I too, rise on a point of urgency in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 43. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) is reported to have said recently that if South Africa refuses independence for Namibia, Canada would consider supporting international sanctions against that country. As the United Nations has clearly declared the independence of Namibia and indeed has passed resolutions
calling for sanctions against that country, and since this involves respect for the rule of law and the right of the majority to choose their government, I move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt):
That this House request the Secretary of State for External Affairs to make a statement on motions or otherwise disclose clearly to the House what proposals Canada has for supporting international sanctions, under what conditions they will be imposed and giving a clear undertaking to this House that Canada will take the action indicated by him.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTED DETERMINATION OF REASON FOR HIGH LEVEL OF MERCURY IN RESIDENTS OF ARCTIC BAY-MOTION UNDER S.O.
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and vital concern. Last Thursday the Department of Health and Welfare reported that in testing residents of Arctic Bay, NWT, all of those tested had a level of mercury above the normal human range. I move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt):
That the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) take immediate steps to investigate the causes of this potentially disastrous situation.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


OLD AGE SECURITY ACT
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, because at least one million Canadians will agree with me that this is an urgent matter, I seek to move it under Standing

December 6, 1976
Oral Questions
Order 43. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent):
That this House urges the government to introduce without further delay its proposed amendments to the Old Age Security Act, relating to residence requirements and reciprocity with other countries, and to include in those amendments a substantial increase in the amount of the basic pension as well as a provision to make the pension available at age 60 to all persons not in the labour market.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REQUEST THAT CERTAIN IMPORTED TEXTILES BE RELEASED FROM CUSTOMS BEFORE CHRISTMAS-MOTION UNDER SO. 43
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that recent import quotas on textiles have frozen large quantities of materials imported into Canada and needed by small retailers in Vancouver and other areas, and because it is apparently impossible for importers to obtain clearance certificates, and it is being said that they will not be available for ten to 14 days, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke):
That this House direct the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to immediately free these imports so they will be available to the small importers before Christmas.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, as a question being raised at the federal-provincial conference of ministers of finance concerns the future of the AIB program, and, as the Prime Minister knows, it was reported that the province of Manitoba may not renew its anti-inflation program agreement when its first term expires this March, while other provinces are reviewing their commitment to the program, will

the Prime Minister tell the House first if Manitoba has informed his government that it will not renew its agreement, as reported and, secondly, whether his administration will continue with the anti-inflation program if one or more provinces decide to let their agreement expire?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the parliamentary secretary that that item has not been reached yet and, therefore, discussion has not begun on it. My knowledge of the Manitoba situation goes back a month or two when Manitoba indicated that it might want to seek some changes in the regulation or in the application of the controls rather than suggest it would withdraw from the program completely.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister inform the House of the nature of any federal contingency plans that may be put in place to keep the program going in the event one or more provinces decides not to extend the agreement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, you will realize that the question is hypothetical in its form. I intend discussing this matter at the first ministers' conference in a general way. Of course, it may be necessary to have federal-provincial meetings in the new year to discuss the eventualities the hon. member suggests. For the time being we are taking it as the fact that the provinces will want to co-operate with the federal government in its anti-inflation program as long as the program is in place.


PLANS FOR RESTRAINING WAGE INCREASES FOLLOWING THE LIFTING OF CONTROLS
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as the finance ministers continue to negotiate they are obviously concerned with what happens on the termination of controls, whenever that happens. On Tuesday last the chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board, Mr. Pepin, told the Standing Committee on Finance that there is a great danger of an explosion in wage rates at the end of controls because AIB wage rulings do not affect the composition of contracts, but only roll back for a temporary period any wage increases in excess of its guidelines. Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether such an eventuality was contemplated when the program was planned, bearing in mind that, if Mr. Pepin's statement is correct, we will require new legislation to ensure that such a bounce back does not occur?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, of course that possibility was contemplated and it is part of every argument against controls. It is one of the reasons the federal government, when it finally decided to introduce controls, made the legislation for a sufficient period of time that this kind of difficulty would be discussed during the control period and, hopefully, that the various opinion and decision makers in the economy would themselves want to do away with this kind of eventuality. It must be realized of course that unless the various sectors are prepared to take some position which would guarantee that there is no renewal of inflation
December 6, 1976

after the controls have been lifted that would make it very difficult to shorten the time of the control period.


FINANCE
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary in respect of the meeting of finance ministers. Last June I questioned the Prime Minister about the possible negative effect of the proposed fiscal arrangement amendments on the have-not provinces. He assured this House then that the changes would prove advantageous to those provinces. In view of statements to the contrary by a number of provincial ministers can the Prime Minister now state definitely that these proposals will maintain the previous commitment to narrow the disparity in social services between provinces and in particular take into account the increasing phenomenon of very high unemployment in these particular provinces.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, on the last part of the question the proposals are not by themselves directly meant to deal with the unemployment problem. They have to do with social services, post-secondary education and medical and hospital care being part of the social services. The fact that some provinces object to them is not surprising. The provinces all come to Ottawa in the hope of getting a greater transfer of money or tax points. This is part of the routine of federal-provincial conferences. I told the House last year and I repeat now that these programs as they are being proposed, particularly the establishment of interim financing proposals, are meant to give the provinces a much greater degree of autonomy in the application of their programs and will still guarantee they will get the money necessary to fulfill those programs.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister would recognize as well as all hon. members the relationship between the three issues being discussed in the health-welfare, educational and social service area, but with the growing problem of unemployment and the fears which have been expressed about a resulting uneven development of social services across Canada or as one of the provincial ministers referred to it, the balkanization, what guarantees is the federal government offering which would assist the provinces with a narrow tax base to make the same per capita provincial contribution to social services as their richer counterparts?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, the way the programs are established, the proposal made is that part of the transfer will be in cash and that cash paid will be the same to every province regardless of whether it is wealthy or poor. The advantage of this of course is that under the previous type of scheme the wealthier provinces could afford to spend more of
Oral Questions
the 50 cent dollars because they could put up their own 50 per cent of the spending required. This particular portion of the program is meant to be more equitable to the less wealthy provinces because it will not be demanded of them that they spend any percentage. We will just give them that portion of the grant regardless of the amount they spend and it will not be tied with their capacity to spend or to their financial base.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in view of the position earlier enunciated by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, I wonder whether the Prime Minister could confirm whether or not the have-not provinces are in agreement with this or have registered their belief that the quality of their own services will in effect either remain static or deteriorate, thus widening the gap between the poorer provinces and those that are more wealthy.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking me to confirm the position of the provinces. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance just informed me that the provinces have not expressed their views on that yet this morning. I believe it will be discussed later today on the agenda.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Considering that both the Department of Finance and the Department of Manpower and Immigration, as well as all private agencies that have commented on the situation, assume that unemployment in 1977 will remain in the range of 8 per cent, could the Prime Minister tell the House whether the Minister of Finance will have new proposals to deal with unemployment to take before his counterparts during the federal-provincial meeting?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the assumption which the hon. member recites is not a bit exaggerated.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, even so, the answer was grotesquely understated. The lowest estimate that I have seen is 7.5 per cent, and they range up to 8.5 per cent. I picked the average of 8 per cent. I repeat my question and ask the Prime Minister whether the Minister of Finance is taking some new initiatives in this area and, if so, would the Prime Minister inform the House as to the general thrust of these proposals?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The agenda comprises an item on general economic conditions. The hon. member is aware as, I am quite sure, are the provinces, of the measures the federal government has announced recently in the area of employment creation and of the steps that have been taken to increase the money supply and reduce the rate of interest. These measures will

December 6, 1976
Oral Questions
take effect over the successive economic periods and they will have the effect of stimulating the economy and employment.


John Edward Broadbent: I assume from the Prime Minister's answer that these paliative steps which have been taken so far remain the only proposals that the government is going to act upon. Considering that the problem is so widespread that we have
9,000	forestry workers being laid off in British Columbia and an unemployment level exceeding 10 per cent in the province of Quebec-one could list the problems associated with every province in the country-will the Prime Minister reassess the government's position and do now what president elect Carter has announced recently in the United States, that is, set specific targets for the next couple of years by which to measure the economic performance of the government and reduce over the next two years unemployment to acceptable full employment levels, but set targets now to which we can hold the government obligated in terms of its accomplishments?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member will realize that the United States is taking more stimulative measures in the area of fiscal and monetary policies. We would like to follow this with even more force if we had some assurance that the various sectors of the economy would not renew their inflationary pressures. The hon. member for York-Simcoe earlier today indicated that there was great danger, particularly in the area of collective agreements.


John Edward Broadbent: You are not listening to the Tories now, are you?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I wish the hon. member would listen to reason. He would then be able to understand how inflation works.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Last Friday the Prime Minister in answer to my question said that the removal of the airborne regiment from Edmonton to Petawawa was based on advice from the military. In view of the statement of Lieutenant-General Stanley Waters that militarily the removal does not make sense whatsoever and the concern of Col. Ian Fraser, the airborne regiment's commandant, about the splitting up of the regiment, would the Prime Minister now correct his false and erroneous statement of last Friday and immediately reverse the clearly wrong decision of the minister of defence?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have not seen the alleged statements by the military to which the hon. member refers. I will take notice of the question, but I expect that if any reversal is to come, it would be from those gentlemen.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Will the Prime Minister at least direct the Minister of National Defence to delay the move until consultation with and approval of the military advisers has been accomplished so that those concerned and the people of Edmonton will not be able to call the Prime Minister a liar, which I would never do?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am glad the hon. member takes that position because he is not, as I am, in a position to know what the military has told us in cabinet meetings, to the effect that certain bases should be closed if the military is to operate properly. Certain bases have been closed across the country, as I answered on Friday, and the people of the areas involved have naturally found it difficult and regrettable, but most of them have taken it standing up like men.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF COST OF RELOCATING AIRBORNE REGIMENT
Steve Eugene Paproski: Since the Prime Minister seems to be determined to make a career of doing the wrong thing, will he not now change character and direct the Minister of National Defence to make a statement on motions outlining the reasons and the projected costs underlying the decision to remove the Canadian Airborne Regiment from Edmonton to Petawawa?


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


Steve Eugene Paproski: Will you or will you not?


PUBLIC BUILDINGS
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. The minister has stated that the Department of Public Works is tearing down the temporary buildings in Ottawa as part of a plan to use up excess office space that is in construction for future years. Could the minister tell the House if the temporary building housing Statistics Canada on Carling Avenue, which was renovated for $110,000 last year, is among those to be torn down?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I cannot give that information off the top of my head. I will be happy to check and inform the hon. member.
December 6, 1976


LLOYDMINSTER HEAVY OIL DEPOSITS-PLANS TO ENSURE DEVELOPMENT-DATE OF REPORT ON EXPORT POLICY
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In testimony before the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works on November 23 the Minister outlined the strategy of his department with respect to oil production for the future in Canada. In view of the great importance he placed upon the Lloydminster heavy oil deposits for the success of this strategy, I wonder if the minister would advise the House when he expects the National Energy Board's report on oil export policy to be completed. Can he also advise the House what interim measures are now being taken and what further interim measures are being contemplated to ensure that these important oilfields are not irretreiv-ably shut down before the minister's plans for them can begin?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, on the first question, I believe that the National Energy Board will be publishing its report some time in the late winter or early spring, I hope by the month of March.
As to the interim measures being taken, they fall into two different categories. The first category is a decision by the National Energy Board to increase the allowance for export from what has been an average of about 80,000 barrels per day of heavy crude oil to 125,000 barrels for the month of January. That is a very substantial increase without any reduction during that month in allocations for light and medium crude.
As to the longer term, I am very hopeful that the discussions with Mr. Getty-and I have had correspondence-will lead to an understanding between the federal government and the government of Alberta for a new set of ground rules which will encourage the development and upgrading of those heavy oils in the Lloydminster area.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Having regard to the discussions the minister is having or will have with the Alberta government, can the minister tell the House what specific proposals the government is going to advance not only for increasing production but also, and more importantly, for establishing in Canada refining capabilities, which are very necessary, so that these vast heavy oil reserves can be used to resolve our long term energy problems?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Getty has agreed that there should be a task force formed, and that task force is in the process of being put together at the present time. It will be headed by my deputy minister, Mr. MacNabb and, I think, by Mr. Govier of the Alberta government. This task force will draw upon both departments of both governments with a view to examining a set of proposals I put forward to Mr. Getty.
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister undertake to tell this House precisely what proposals he is advancing in terms of the development of this very important resource?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to be able to do that but at this time I think it would be premature. I do not think our discussions have advanced far enough on a general agreement with respect to those principles. They were discussed on a confidential basis. I think I would be in a position to make those principles known to the House in the relatively near future.


REQUEST FOR CUSTOMS CLEARANCE OF IMPORTED TEXTILES BEFORE CHRISTMAS-EFFECT OF BASING QUOTAS ON 1975 LEVEL
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the new regulations that took effect on November 29 which put quotas on the import of textiles; in view of the fact that many Canadian importers, especially in the Vancouver area, have been caught with their imports for the Christmas selling season in transit and require certificates of clearance for them; in view of the fact that they are being told as of today that it is going to take from 10 to 14 days to get clearances on any particular application, can the Prime Minister advise this House whether he is prepared to take immediate steps and use his good offices to persuade the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to attend to this matter immediately? The situation is causing extremely serious difficulty not just in the city of Vancouver but in other places in Canada as well. I may point out that these are not goods which would be stopped by the import quotas; these are goods which were ordered before the quotas were imposed and which would properly be allowed through. It is just an administrative problem which is causing a great deal of difficulty.


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, when the announcement was made by the minister last week the concerns of the importers of this country were taken into consideration. In view of the representations made by the hon. member, however, I shall bring the matter to the attention of the department so that it can be expedited.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Despite whatever considerations were taken into account the matter is of pressing urgency and I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for his assurance. I should like to put a supplementary question. In view of the fact that import levels are being set on the basis of imports in 1975; in view of the fact that many of these importers are bringing in textile goods which cannot be

December 6, 1976
Oral Questions
obtained in Canada either as exact replicas or even similar goods and in view of the fact that since 1975 many of these small importers have expanded their business and if the 1975 level is to be imposed then they will be out of business half way through this year, could the hon. parliamentary secretary also bring this matter to the attention of his minister and make a statement to the House as soon as possible on how this anomaly is to be resolved in favour of people who are providing jobs for Canadians?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Mr. Speaker, incidents such as those mentioned by the hon. member have been brought to my attention. We realize that those who expanded their business since 1975 quite legitimately are concerned. The matter is under consideration by the department and I shall bring an answer to the hon. member as soon as possible.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and his parliamentary secretary, I will direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment regarding a news release concerning the high levels of mercury found in Arctic Bay in the Northwest Territories. What steps is the department taking to protect the residents of that community against the dangers of mercury poisoning? Now that testing has shown there is a high level of mercury in some residents of Arctic Bay, will the department take steps to determine exactly what the situation is?


Hon. Rom6o LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the threat of mercury contamination through effluent in the water is well known. In fact, the use of mercury in this case is prohibited but I shall look into the case referred by the hon. member in detail.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does the minister consider that the current U.S.S.R. practice of imposing excessive duties on gifts from relatives to their nationals is a breach of the intent of the Helsinki agreement's "basket 3" and if so, how does the minister propose to respond to this breach?


Hon. Ron Basford (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have not been briefed on that particular subject by my colleague, the Secretary of State for Exter-
(Mr. Fraser.)
nal Affairs, but I shall draw the question to his attention immediately.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a
question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development? In view of the serious implications of the mercury test report released by the Department of National Health and Welfare with regard to mercury pollution in native communities, could the minister indicate what strategy if any he has developed or is developing to deal with cases where large numbers of people in certain communities are affected by high levels of mercury in their bodies?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, different approaches are being carried out in different provinces. We are co-operating with the Department of National Health and Welfare and we are working with the provinces of Manitoba, Alberta and Quebec on this problem. I do not know if I can give much more detail in this House but quite a bit is being done.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Could the minister clarify whether his department or any other has done a study on the ratio of mercury pollution coming from industrial sources and natural sources? Which of these sources presents the greater problem for these communities?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, our department is providing financial support to the CREE in Quebec for a screening program with respect to fish and mercury contaminants and there may be similar programs in some of the other provinces. As I say, I do not have a lot of detail but work is being done and funding is being given in Quebec.


POSSIBILITY OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH TAIWAN FOR SALE OF NUCLEAR REACTORS
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a
question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources? Could the minister inform the House if the atomic energy commission had serious discussions and negotiations with the government of Taiwan some time in 1972-73 about the possibility of supplying six reactors to that government?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I imagine the hon. member is referring to Atomic Energy of Canada, Limited. Quite frankly, I have no knowledge of any such discussions or negotiations on the part of that corporation.
December 6, 1976


SUGGESTED PROHIBITION OF SALE OF NUCLEAR REACTORS UNTIL PROPER SAFEGUARDS NEGOTIATED
James McPhail Gillies: May I put a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister? Given the fact it is now clear that the position taken by the government of supplying nuclear reactors abroad to help less developed countries receive power does not really wash-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James McPhail Gillies: -will the Prime Minister instruct Atomic Energy of Canada, Limited not to sell Canadian reactors abroad until proper safeguards are negotiated?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the general subject is one to which the government not only has been addressing itself, but has been discussing in this House. I do not think one could make an absolute statement such as the hon. member is making, that we should not help less developed countries find sources of energy which they can use to develop themselves. I do degree, however, that increased safeguards are necessarily part of the deal. As the hon. member knows Canada is in the forefront of placing upgrading safeguards as a requirement for all nuclear nations.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary. The
reason I raised this question with such urgency is that there seems to be a high degree of uncertainty still about precisely where Canada operates with relation to sales of nuclear reactors. Given the enormous damage that can be done by placing reactors in improper hands, until this whole matter is straightened out and new safeguards are imposed would the government not consider putting a moratorium on sales? I asked the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce about the Taiwan situation. We have difficulty in knowing where Canada is operating in this field. Until we have this matter totally cleaned up, would the government not consider the wisdom of putting a ban on these operations until proper safeguards are worked out with countries all over the world?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, surely the essential conclusion one must draw is that we should not export nuclear technology and the reactors unless we can get the proper degree of safeguards. That seems to be a more reasonable proposition than imposing an outright ban. I repeat, with regard to the ban we have, we are trying to ensure that other supplyers go along with Canada in upgrading those safeguards. The hon. member will agree that there would not be safety for the world in nuclear technology just because Canada were to cease exporting it. We have to make sure that our own knowledge in those areas is used to convince other nuclear suppliers to do what we are doing. That has been the object of the government's exercise at the London nuclear suppliers' conference and elsewhere.
Oral Questions


MANPOWER
Mr. Jim Balfour (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is it correct that the minister has instructed his officials responsible for approving LIP grants in the Regina East constituency to only consider native and Metis proposals, thereby discriminating against non-native and non-Metis applications of equal or greater merit.


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 

NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. On November 15 in this House, in response to a question I asked, the minister indicated that the resolution of the Territorial Council of the Northwest Territories to consider the future social, economic and political development of the territories was then under consideration. Can the minister advise whether the examination has been completed? Is he prepared to give the resolution his support and funding?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge the review of that matter has not been completed.



CARROTHERS REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS-DATE OF DECISION ON IMPLEMENTATION

Douglas Charles Neil: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister advise if a decision has been made regarding the decennial review as recommended by the Carrothers report?


William Warren Allmand: No, Mr. Speaker; a decision has not been made yet.

December 6, 1976
Oral Questions TRANSPORT



REASON FOR REMOVAL OF TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM FROM PLACENTIA BAY-REQUEST FOR DETAILED REPORT

Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport in connection with the traffic control system in Placentia Bay, Newfoundland, about which I asked a week ago. Can the minister now advise what system is currently in effect there, why the radar facilities at Cuslett, Placentia Bay, are being kidnapped and transferred to Port aux Basques in the district of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and whether there is any prospect for the re-opening of the oil refinery? Was that a factor in the removal of these facilities from Placentia Bay?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: No, Mr. Speaker. The consideration underlying the removal of facilities has to do with the relative amount of traffic in the various areas and the clear and apparent need for those facilities in the Port aux Basques area. As far as the re-opening of the refinery is concerned, I would think the hon. member might better consult with his former colleagues.


John Carnell Crosbie: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the hon. gentleman going to give me a detailed report on the system now in use saying whether it is safe, what the traffic figures are and what other considerations bear on this question?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to get that detailed information. I understand there is very little traffic compared to the previous situation which existed there and that traffic figures are certainly much higher in the Port aux Basques area.



CONFERENCE ON AFRICAN CULTURE


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. I apologize for not having given him notice of it; perhaps he will want to take it as notice and reply at a later date. Mr. Speaker, early next year some 50 blacks will be attending the second world conference on African black culture at Lagos, Nigeria. Would the minister indicate why only one of those 50 blacks happens to be a Canadian-born citizen?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, that question was raised at the end of last week in the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts by the hon. member for Southwestern Nova. I promised her that I would provide an answer. I will at the same time provide one for the hon. gentleman.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. According to the Auditor General the loss of control over public spending results from to the fact that key recommendations on financial management and control, as made by the royal commission on government organizations, the Glassco commission, in 1962 were not implemented so that control has been deteriorating for some 15 years. I realize that the government has called for the establishment of a royal commission, and I would ask the President of the Treasury Board this question: in light of the misappropriation of funds as listed by the Auditor General, what steps does the minister plan to take immediately, first, to establish a financial plan which will serve as a cornerstone for managing and controlling our financial resources and, second, to establish a central system of budgetary control based on an effectively functioning control system in each department and agency of government?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I think the most appropriate answer I can make is to refer the hon. member-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: To the progress report.


Robert Knight Andras: -to the progress report-the hon. member for Vegreville has the answer-which I tabled in this House two weeks ago and which-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Some progress report.


Robert Knight Andras: -obviously many hon. members have not yet taken time to read.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I have read it.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: 1 read everything the minister puts out.



BIDDING BY CROWN CORPORATIONS ON VENEZUELAN PROJECT-REQUEST FOR REPORT

Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Since it is reported that bidding closed today on the railway construction project in Venezuela, is the right hon. gentleman now in a position, following discussions in cabinet, to inform the House of the extent of federal involvement and any assistance directed toward the success, hopefully, of the Canadian consortiums efforts to secure some of these important contracts?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 

SUPPLY AND SERVICES


Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. Last year the Auditor General reported that some 70 per cent of government departments were not satisfied with the financial reporting services provided by the Department of Supply and Services and further, in this year's report, the Auditor General again stated that departments continue to be dissatisfied with the financial reporting services provided by the Department of Supply and Services. Actually, some 70 per cent of departments are still operating under or developing their own systems. It was brought out in the miscellaneous estimates committee in the last two weeks that this fact was contributing greatly to the total loss of control over government expenditures. Will the minister say why he has permitted this serious deficiency to continue, in view of the seriousness of the problem?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Auditor General would be prepared to announce today that several corrective steps were taken by my department and that the dialogue we had engaged with him is continuing.



SUGGESTED RECALL OF EXPERTS TO SOLVE FINANCIAL CONTROL PROBLEMS OF DEPARTMENT

Peter Colwell Bawden: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The recent annual report of the Department of Supply and Services states that the audit services bureau of the Department of Supply and Services has a special department to advise the management of most governments departments of the adequacy of financial and management controls. Will the minister say, in view of the difficulties within his own department, whether he intends to recall those experts, to straighten out the difficulties in the Department of Supply and Services?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: That has been done, Mr. Speaker.



PROPOSED STUDY OF HIGH COST OF ELECTRICITY IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES-REQUEST FOR REPORT

Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who will recall that as long as six months ago he outlined what he considered as the proper approach to the problem of electric power in the Maritime provinces. Can he report what progress
Oral Questions
has been made even on bringing on the study he was proposing, or is he still going round in circles?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The answer is yes.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, a great deal of work has been done on this important question, as the hon. member knows. We have been looking at both the short-term problem and the medium and longer-term problem. We have tried to deal with the shorter-term problem with the oil compensation account and subsidies, which are now of considerable magnitude, and to work toward other medium and longer-term solutions for Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and, indeed, the Maritimes as a whole. I think we will be in a position shortly to make an announcement regarding a number of measures aimed at dealing with some of the immediate and longer-term problems. My last point is that it is not always realized that the compensatory payments put in place provide a degree of protection in the event that the OPEC nations should increase the price of oil on January 1.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am grateful for the information I did not request. I am sure the minister will be among the first to recognize that while the short-term problem is extremely acute, my question related to the longer-term problem. Can he give me a firm date by which he will make a comprehensive statement as to what the longer-term approach is to be, since he must recognize that the way things are going it is not only that in the long term we shall all be dead but that we shall all be dead before we learn what his response is to be.


Alastair William Gillespie: I have stated repeatedly that we shall be making an announcement before the end of the year. I indicated in my answer a few moments ago that I hoped we would be in a position to make an announcement shortly, some time between now and the time the House recesses for Christmas.



AIRPORTS


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It concerns the proposed expansion of the Vancouver International Airport and the problems which have arisen in connection with the provision of a new runway there. The minister's predecessor set up an ecological subcommittee to study this question. The committee recommended that a full estuary plan be completed before any further dredging was done. The minister has indicated that no firm decision has been taken with regard to building a third runway. In these circumstances, can the minister tell us why this dredging work has gone ahead in violation of the committee's recommendation?

December 6, 1976
Oral Questions


Otto Emil Lang: My understanding is that the dredging currently going on is essentially dredging unrelated to the special requirement which would have existed had the early construction of an additional runway been contemplated. Material which is dredged in the ordinary course has been stockpiled for possible use in construction. This is done without prejudice to a decision with regard to the runway which is presently the subject of study by an environmental panel.



VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL-EFFECT OF DIVERSION OF SMALL PLANES TO BOUNDARY BAY

Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: One of the major problems at the airport is the volume of small plane traffic. Would the minister advise us whether he has under consideration a plan to divert small planes to Boundary Bay airport? If that were the case, would the minister's studies suggest there is justification for a third runway at the international airport?


Otto Emil Lang: That possibility, together with others, in relation to the maximum use of existing facilities, is being taken into consideration and these matters will certainly be carefully borne in mind before any final judgment is made.



REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE ONLY PRODUCERS HOLDING PERMITS ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE IN PLEBISCITE

Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. As the National Farm Products Marketing Act provides that only producers may vote on a question involving the establishment of a national marketing agency, can the minister assure the House and Western grain producers that only Wheat Board permit holders will be allowed to take part in the federal grains plebiscite?


Otto Emil Lang: The complicated question of the various interests involved in the marketing of feed grains is one which I referred to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture for comment. It does seem to me that there are a variety of interests involved, not simply those of the producers. But the matter is being taken into consideration by the Federation which is consulting with provincial authorities as well as with many other farm organizations.


William Gordon Ritchie: When the minister handed this problem to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and asked them to make recommendations with regard to voting procedures, did he inform the federation that consumers of feed grains would not be allowed to vote?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker. I believe the letter has been made public and is therefore available to the hon. member for reference. But I will send a copy to him.



ROYAL COMMISSIONS


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the importance the government attaches to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Financial Organization and Accountability, would the hon. gentleman not agree that before Mr. O. G. Stoner embarks upon his duties with the commission it would be appropriate that his role in the "after-the-fact" tender negotiations between Mr. Matchett of Cara and Mr. Bellehumeur of Kebec Restaurants in connection with the Mirabel contract be satisfactorily explained to the House-something which has never been done?


Robert Knight Andras: I am quite satisfied that Mr. Stoner was a good selection and that he will perform his duties on the commission in an exemplary fashion.


James McPhail Gillies: Why do you say that? There is no evidence to support that reply.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Since Mr. Bellehumeur has now been charged in connection with a criminal matter and since Mr. Stoner's role in another venture involving him has never been explained, would the minister not agree that this would be an appropriate time to satisfy the House as to Mr. Stoner's suitability having regard to the importance which is attached to his task? And as far as the opposition is concerned, can the minister further explain the role of Mr. Stoner in the past?


Robert Knight Andras: I have nothing to add to my previous answer.



PROPOSED NATIONAL POWER GRID FOR ATLANTIC PROVINCES-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Would the hon. gentleman bring the House up to date on the status of the negotiations between his department and various provincial departments with regard to the establishment of a national power grid.
Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): I cannot be very specific at the moment. I know work has been going on; there have been discussions between members of the Interdepartmental Advisory Committee on Energy-this is a committee of deputy ministers which has been looking at the whole question of a national power grid and whether funds might be provided by the federal government and by the provinces concerned, with a view to accelerating, or perhaps completing parts of the project. This work will
December 6, 1976

be separate from, and in addition to, the work I hope will start very shortly in Atlantic Canada.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: 
Howard Earl Johnston: Am I to understand that the Department of the Environment is studying the safety factors involved in chemical treatment and preparing appropriate guidelines?


Mr. LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent):: We are trying to deal with a serious problem but we are being very cautious with respect to the measures to be used in the process.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Having regard to the fact that an official of Loto-Canada disclosed this morning that the odds against winning a million dollars in last night's lottery draw were a maximum of one in 800,000 which I believe is more than twice the odds of being struck by lightning, can the minister advise the House whether, in all fairness to the consumer, Loto-Canada should not be required to make the same kind of disclosure of odds as, for example, the Province of Ontario has recently done in connection with its Wintario Lottery?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: As to what should be revealed or disclosed by Loto-Canada, I cannot say. I must confess some of the advertizing showing people redecorating their homes, buying new boats and so on as a result of buying a ticket are excessive-


Stanley Howard Knowles: And misleading.
Oral Questions


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: -and misleading.


Otto John Jelinek: I appreciate the minister's statement. As the hon. gentleman knows, no private enterprise would be allowed to get away with such a misleading approach, to use the minister's own word, one in which the odds against the consumer are not spelled out. This being the case, I should like to ask the minister whether he would launch an inquiry into the advertising campaign surrounding this lottery and take the appropriate steps under the combines legislation to rectify the situation in future.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Perhaps I should modify my statement and use of the word "misleading", but I do think that the kind of exaggerated optimism which might encourage people to believe certain results would flow from buying a ticket should be tempered. While I would not recommend an investigation, I hope that what I have said will temper the enthusiasm of officials of Loto-Canada for this kind of advertising.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In the minister's announcement setting a quota on garment imports at 1975 levels, he quoted an increase of 52 per cent for 1976 imports over 1975 imports. Can the minister state what part of this increase in imports was caused by Canadian manufacturers functioning as importers; and can he advise whether these Canadian manufacturers can cover the market shortfall caused by the quotas by increasing their own Canadian production?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. With respect, that information ought to be sought on the order paper, I would think, or perhaps by correspondence.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Was the Secretary of State for External Affairs stating government policy when he said to the Canadian Institute of International Affairs in Toronto that if South Africa refuses independence to Namibia, Canada will consider supporting international sanctions?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, in his speech to the Canadian Institute

December 6, 1976
Remarks of Minister
of International Affairs my colleague said that if South Africa failed to reach an agreement acceptable to the United Nations on the Namibian issue, Canada would have to consider supporting a security council resolution declaring that the situation represented a threat to international peace and security. In so doing, Canada would also vote to make the present voluntary embargo on military co-operation and the supply of arms to South Africa mandatory for all United Nations members under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. I would be glad, for the guidance of the hon. member, to table copies of the speech for his reference.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I should like to table, in both official languages, the report of the commission on costs of transporting grain by rail.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I presume there is a desire on the part of the hon. member for Greenwood to table the remarks of the Secretary of State for External Affairs of December 3, which I now do.


TABLING OF LETTER REGARDING PROPOSED OIL REFINERY AT EASTPORT, MAINE
Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, from time to time hon. members have expressed an interest in the proposal by the Pittston Company to construct and operate a tanker terminal for a refinery at Eastport, Maine. In view of this interest, I would like to table two copies, in English and French, of a letter sent to the Pittston Company on December 1 informing the company of the Canadian government's opposition to its proposal as currently envisaged. I might add that the government of New Brunswick fully supports the position taken in this letter. This letter was also given to the U.S. Department of State, which indicated that it would read the message into the record of last Friday's U.S. federal hearings on the Eastport proposal.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not able to tell, without looking at the documents, whether or not they are in the normal ambit of

documents to be tabled at this time, but I presume that the House gives its consent. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Rom£o LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment): Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table, in both official languages, the annual report of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada for the year 1975.

Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), and on behalf of the Minister of Finance, I propose to table the statement of the Minister of Finance this morning to the federal-provincial conference of finance ministers, with a supporting table and a background statement prepared by the department for the conference.
 * *


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Goodale:: Mr. Speaker, following extensive consultations on Bill C-19, the government has agreed to support the deletion in committee of clause 15 of that bill, the clause relating to the Railway Act. Pursuant to those same discussions, the government proposes to move at a later date another bill which would have the same effect as clause 15, and the government would not anticipate any procedural difficulties with that move.
With that understanding, Mr. Speaker, I believe the House would give me leave now to move, seconded by the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Guay):
That notwithstanding any Standing Order, no later than 3.45 p.m. on December 17, 1976, Mr. Speaker shall interrupt any debate and shall put forthwith and successively any question or questions necessary for the disposal at all stages of Bill C-19, an act to amend or repeal certain statutes to enable the restraint of government expenditures.
I also understand that there would be unanimous consent to make an order that if the debate on second reading of Bill C-19 concludes today, any division or divisions will be held at 3.00 p.m. after questions tomorrow.
December 6, 1976


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to speak to this motion. Let me address myself first to the last part concerning the unanimous consent as to deferral of a vote. This is quite agreeable from our point of view, if I can dispose of that matter quickly. Assuming that this motion is now before the House for some discussion, I want to say to the parliamentary secretary, through you, Mr. Speaker, and through him to the government of Canada, that the fact that the government has had to come to this point is a victory for the right of the members of this House to speak, and to speak at some length, respecting a piece of legislation which the government ought not to have brought forward.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think that in order to be procedurally correct, the motion which is being proposed is advanced without any prior notice, and accordingly can be done only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent that the motion be put at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council, seconded by the Minister without Portfolio, moves:
That notwithstanding any Standing Order, no later than 3.45 p.m. on December 17, 1976, Mr. Speaker shall interrupt any debate and shall put forthwith and successively any question or questions necessary for the disposal at all stages of Bill C-19, an act to amend or repeal certain statutes to enable the restraint of government expenditures.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to bother repeating what I said, except to say this: this is an indication of why from time to time the government ought to listen to the members of this House, instead of assuming that it has in its own reservoir of thought all of the wisdom regarding the problems facing Canada. Many members who spoke during the course of the debate told the government repeatedly about the importance of this section. I must say I would be modest in claiming today, for the opposition in this parliament, after long and arduous debate, a victory respecting Bill C-19.
More than that, Mr. Speaker, I think it is only fair to point out to the government that in the event the government see fit to bring forward a bill-they have not said definitely they will, but I understand this may be their intention-then I say as straightforwardly as I always try to be that to the extent we are permitted to press this issue, we intend to do so. I say that because what was wrong with the provision in Bill C-19 would be equally wrong in any bill in which it might be brought forward in substitution for clause 15.
One other matter, Mr. Speaker. I think it is important in terms of this motion that everybody understand that this is not the first time the provisions in Bill C-19 which the government has now undertaken to withdraw, or some similar provisions, have been brought before this House. In the first session of this parliament the government brought forward Bill C-87 which contained this provision in precisely the same terms. Although
Business of the House
there was never any debate on Bill C-87, there was long consultation involving many members of this House regarding the provisions of that bill as they related to the corresponding clause of this bill which the government has now undertaken will be withdrawn.
We pointed out to the government the position of the opposition, as well as the opposition of a host of people in Canada, in view of the importance in terms of confederation on one hand and the shipping industry on the other, and we urged the government to reconsider its position. We hoped, quite frankly, that during the course of the summer the government would reconsider its position and would bring in a bill that at least did not contain that clause.
1 cannot comprehend the workings of the minds of members of the government unless it is that they are completely out of touch with reality. However, following these negotiations carried out in good faith between the responsible minister and a responsible member of the opposition who has been here for many years and who is known as a member not to play games with the government-and I speak of the hon. member for Edmonton West-the government once again, for some reason unknown to us, brought in Bill C-19 including the same clause.
As a result of all these negotiations, it must be clear to any member of the government with even half an eye what the intention of the opposition is in respect of this bill. The importance of this bill to people in many parts of Canada must also be clear. In spite of all this, what did we see? We were faced with the appearance of Bill C-19. Lest some spokesman for the government attempts to point out that this government is responsive to the needs of Canadians in terms of Bill C-19, let me just say that the opposition has had to kick this government in the head to get it to finally see the reasoning behind the objection. Any government that has to be moved in this way, by a kick in the head, cannot be called responsive in terms of any real meaning.
This is an important day for us in this House to understand the tradition of a second reading debate. It is the right of the opposition, when it sees a great principle at stake, to debate a bill and use all reasonable parliamentary procedures to delay the government so that in a country as broad and diverse as this country there will be an opportunity for that point of view to be brought home with pressure placed on the government.
This particular piece of legislation presents the classic argument against the use of the British system of closure. If this debate were taking place under the British system, it would only have lasted one day and this government, as bullheaded as it is from time to time, would have been able to go forward and enact the measure. The damage would then be done and the only recourse would be that provided at an election. This is an indication that perhaps there should be another recourse, and that is the recourse of this parliament to delay legislation when it is bad.
That right of parliament carries with it a corresponding responsibility not to delay good legislation. It has never been

December 6, 1976
Business of the House
the practice of this opposition to argue interminably in respect of legislation that was in keeping with a principle that ought to be accepted.
The members on this side of the House of Commons have done the people of Canada a service today. They have debated this bill long and hard and have finally brought the government to this position. I hope the government will remember this, and will remember as well that the sins of clause 15, if they are transmitted in the same way, will be dealt with similarly in any subsequent bill that is brought forward. It will be the intention of this party, I hope joined by other opposition parties in this House and members on the government side who represent areas in the province of Quebec, in the mari-times and, to the extent there are any, government members from out west, and those from Ontario, to consider any substitution for Bill C-19 which contains a counterpart to clause 15 as being just as bad as the bill is today.
I hope it has been brought home to the government that any legislation which affects something as fundamental as our confederation, as does this bill, as set forth by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain during his memorable speech, should not be brought forward in a willy-nilly fashion in an attempt to override the wishes of the people of this country.
It is becoming abundantly apparent day after day, as a result of the debate on this legislation and as a result of other things that have happened inside and outside this chamber, that this goverment does not have all the answers, or perhaps that this government has none of the answers. In terms of original thought, this government's well has run dry. Its attitude is respect of Bill C-19 is the best indication possible of how dry is its well of wisdom.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council was quite correct in his statement that there had been consultations leading to the presentation of the motion now before us, and I am pleased to confirm that we shall give our support to that motion.
The effect of what we are doing is that the debate on second reading of Bill C-19 may not last many more days. It might even end today. At any rate, we have the government's assurance that when the bill gets into the standing committee clause 15 will be deleted. It is then understood that further stages of the debate will not last longer than a week from Friday. In return for getting rid of clause 15-and I think clause 16(4) has to go as well-it is reasonable that this long debate should come to some kind of termination.
However, sir, I do not think I can wax quite as eloquently as did the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton about this being a great parliamentary victory. It is a victory, as clause 15 should not have been in this bill and it is to be taken out. However, Mr. Speaker, neither should clauses 6, 7, 8 and 9 have been in this bill. Those are clauses that have denied to families in Canada in 1976 over $200 million, to which they are entitled, in increases in their family allowances. If these clauses had

been taken out as well as clause 15, then perhaps I might be able to say this was a great victory for parliament. It is a victory, but not quite as outstanding a victory as has been suggested by my friend, the House leader of the official opposition.
There are other elements of this bill that are faulty. We think the scale of values the government has in trying to achieve restraint is all wrong. The government is restraining in the wrong places; there are places where restraint should be exercised which do not seem to have occurred to the government at all. Therefore, even with the assurance that clause 15 and subclause (4) of clause 16 will be removed, we still think the bill is a bad bill; bad positively in some of the things that are in it and bad in its failure to deal with some measures of restraint that ought to be before us at this time.
Therefore, on the second reading of the bill we shall be voting against it, and probably at further stages as well, but we are prepared to go along with the procedural suggestion made just now. I do join with my friend in welcoming the fact that clause 15 is to go, but I hope that before this session goes much further we may have greater parliamentary victories to celebrate than this one.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I want to reply only briefly on this motion in order to comment on the remarks of hon. members who have spoken to this point, particularly the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton. The government, in moving in this manner to take clause 15 out of the bill, is once again indicating its wish, wherever possible, to avoid the use of peremptory devices to put business to the question in this House. Of course, it is the over-all view of the government that after a reasonable time for debate the question ought to be put and an issue decided, rather than a constant prolonging of debate in this House.
The very prolonging of the debate on this issue rendered somewhat uncertain the timing of its application, and thereby makes sensible the separation of that particular clause from the rest of the bill. It is, however, the government's continued view that that clause and the repeal of section 272 of the Railway Act should be proceeded with, and it will be a real advantage to have that clause standing separately and by itself in the bill so that the nature of the costs and the expenditures involved can be highlighted.
Hon. members opposite who sometimes show concern for the nature of expenditures may be asked to defend very specifically their opposition to a move which has in it the elimination of some long-standing payments which have led to high-cost transportation being used to accomplish things which could be accomplished with far less cost to the taxpayer. It will be our objective to highlight that. It is also true that the extra time involved will mean that the movements of grain, which were really assured for this winter, in any case, in the old, traditional pattern, will go on without any change at all in regard to the financial consequences.
December 6, 1976

In the meantime, discussions about the future movement of grain and the kind of conversations which could not take place so long as these artificial subsidies were in place will go forward, and the future will see the same kind of volumes of grain moved to markets with less total cost to the Canadian taxpayer and savings to that taxpayer, which is an objective all of us ought to share but which, of course, for various local and parochial reasons members opposite do not always share.
It will, therefore, be our intention to proceed with a separate measure; but we were able at this point in time to see the wisdom of dividing the bill rather than, as I say, using peremptory measures to bring to the question in this House an issue which has been before it for a long time, that very debate rendering uncertain the exact timing and implications for various parts of the industry and how the bill would operate.
This government has shown flexibility before this in other areas where, rather than move forward with measures to cut off debate, we have attempted in every reasonable way to have issues isolated and identified. We have done this once again. I will look forward to the separate debate on this matter. Of course I do not want to debate that particular issue at this point.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for having left the House at the start of the discussion but I was called to the phone on an urgent matter. I do not know whether stands were taken Friday in this regard, but I was told a while ago that the debate would be limited on this bill provided clause 15 is deleted.
We have argued twice about Bill C-19; I feel that is enough. We indicated to the government what we intended to do with regard to it and what we expected the minister to do, that is subdivide the bill so we could accept what is acceptable. For instance, we could take clause 2 of the bill on adult training and decide on that. Let us not mix this bill with feed grains or their subsidies. Clauses 3, 4 and 5 could easily be grouped together: they deal strictly with terminating the Company of Young Canadians. The same goes for Information Canada.
Let us discuss then decide upon, for instance, the clauses dealing with family allowances, as well as clause 12 on scientific research. I feel the government has already taken one small step in that direction simply by deleting clause 15 of the bill, to enable us to discuss the others; but it should go even further. I wonder what keeps it from presenting us with two more "small papers", thus allowing us to deal with each matter separately. That surprises me, even astounds me!


An hon. Member:: It is time-


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Someone says it is time. We have the time but we lost one month because the bill was not subdivided. One would think the government has a gift for mixing everything. As for me, I cannot retract what I have already said; I have committed myself, saying I am in favour of some clauses, against others. Still, we will have to express
Business of the House
ourselves on each clause. I expect the government to enable us to do so.


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, it is with some satisfaction that I speak on this closure motion today. When I spoke two weeks ago, I warned parliament that by putting in a statutory provision to repeal section 272 of a Railway Act the government unwittingly, I thought, was attacking the very foundations of our federal system. I asked the government at that time, two weeks ago, to please remove clause 15 and not be guilty of such a crime against the federal state. Apparently the government has yielded to that point of view, and I have to say, on behalf of those living in all parts of Canada who take pride that we were able to bring together a federal state since 1867, that we have not destroyed one basic foundation of that state.
But at the same time as I make that statement and review the debate of the last two weeks, I remember, as the fight went on in this House almost entirely by members of the official opposition and no one else on this fundamental question of protecting the right of the Atlantic provinces to be tied to the rest of Canada, that we received very little assistance from the members of the New Democratic Party. I say that flatly at this time. They will have to pay for that dereliction of duty.
The government is wise in backing off on this particular clause. It is wise because it is aware now that you cannot keep beating your head against the foundations of our federal system without causing some reaction from the people. The reason the government is withdrawing clause 15 is obvious. We have been running a filibuster here, as the hon. member for Fundy-Royal made very clear last week in a beautifully argued and coherent speech. He gave the legal background of all this protection we have given the Atlantic provinces. Now we are being asked to accept this motion by the government which allows it to bring in closure on the remaining clauses. That brings me to the second point of my remarks.
There are two specific issues in this bill. One is the view of the official opposition that clause 15 should be removed entirely because it has nothing to do with this type of bill and because it is a statutory protection for the people of the Atlantic provinces which originally goes back to the agreement dating long before confederation when we spoke of the interprovincial railway. That is the first issue.
The second issue is that the government was coming to the House and pretending that these various devices were a way of cutting down government expenditures. They were fooling the people that they would make cut-backs. The apparent nonsense of that was exposed in the Auditor General's report. We were able to use the arguments in the Auditor General's report. If you want to save money, cut out the business of pretending that the devices you brought forth in this bill are the only ways of restraining government expenditures. What will happen now is that clause 15 will be brought in in a separate bill and we will go back to debating the other issues
1690

December 6, 1976
Business of the House
as to whether these items are worth-while efforts in the restraint of public spending.
I want to conclude my remarks with a very simple and frank warning to the government. We know that the repeal of section 272 of the Railway Act was an attempt to knock out the protection which the maritime provinces had under a statute of Canada that they would always be tied to this country by a railway or a water system, and that if there are any losses, we as Canadians across the country would help meet those losses. In this bill the government attacked that promise to the Atlantic provinces. We also know that very soon the government will be bringing in a bill to attack another great promise made to Canadians, to open up the west. That promise exists in a statute and is known as the Crowsnest pass rate. We feel in our hearts that the Minister of Transport and the government are trying to take away the western foundation of our federal union. If the government wonders why Canadians across Canada feel alienated, they should know that it is the result of their own mistakes.
They were wise to reconsider the repeal of section 272 at this time. I think the evidence we have is that the ministers are so busy flying up and down the country that they have no time to examine the legislation that is put before them and they allow this type of legislation to come to the House. They force those of us in the opposition who are aware of the implications of the issues before us to delay the passage of that legislation until somebody takes notice of the fact that we are delaying it. This is a victory for parliament. Those of us who debated this bill and pointed out these arguments to the government kept doing it until the government became aware of the fact that to get the bill through they would have to apply closure.
Personally, I do not believe that closure should be necessary in a democratic House of Commons at our stage of sophistication and development. The whole purpose of debate is to give us time to bring these matters to public attention. The issues brought out last week in the Auditor General's report and made known to the public by the media did not stop us from keeping up our battle here. The arguments and proposals put forward by the Auditor General should be dealt with, but we wanted the people of Canada to know there was a fundamental issue before us. The government did not want the people to know that. That is why they are deleting this clause from the bill.
I want to conclude my remarks by congratulating the government for coming to its senses. I hope the cabinet will have more time in the future to examine legislation which senior civil servants are putting before members of the government. We are the elected people of this country and we have a direct responsibility to the people. We are not run by a small group in the civil service whose idea it is to centralize everything. These beliefs are not only strongly held in Quebec but they are also strongly held in other parts of Canada. What has come out of this debate is that the Atlantic provinces knew they had friends in the official opposition from all parts of Canada. We are a united party on the issue of the federal union, and we do not try to destroy the connection.

The second fact that came to the attention of the people is that we in the official opposition are prepared to stand up and fight to force the government, by a filibuster, either to withdraw legislation or to amend it. They have surrendered and are withdrawing clause 15. I hope that when the Crowsnest pass rate fight starts, people from all parts of Canada and members from all parts of the House will join us in our fight to ensure that this tie with western Canada will not be destroyed by the government.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in expressing pleasure at the government's withdrawal of clause 15, action which at least for the time being grants a temporary reprieve with respect to the repeal of section 272 of the Railway Act. The Minister of Transport indicated that this action was brought about by the responsible government party. I want to point out to him very clearly that it is an example, rather, of the government succumbing to an ever-watchful opposition doing its job in a very persistent and determined fashion. I do not know whether the government has indeed come to its senses, but I think it has a legislative program with which it has to proceed and, rightly or wrongly, it saw fit to propose this motion.
I should pay tribute to the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for St. Boniface. Last week I discussed this proposal with him and it seemed that he was the only person on that side of the House who was prepared to entertain such discussions. I believe that through his influence and because of his work with some of his senior cabinet colleagues that it was realized by the government members that we on this side of the House would not be prepared to succumb to any threats from the government.
The opposition to this bill from this side of the House is not new. It was clearly established last year when Bill C-87 was brought forth. As this party's House leader pointed out, extensive negotiations took place between the former president of the treasury board and the hon. member for Edmonton West. There was an exchange of correspondence in which we offered to trade off any one of the $74 million worth of cut-backs which we would have been prepared to support. No positive alternatives or suggestions emanated from the other side of the House, but we on this side offered some proposals to deal with the issue, followed by an exchange of correspondence. There was no further action after that.
The member of the Social Credit party brought out a very important fact, namely, that we are dealing with issues of such great importance that, as my friend the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain indicated, they tamper with the very fabric of confederation. Yet, this important measure is included in an omnibus bill.
You, Mr. Speaker, and your colleagues in the chair have had a great deal of difficulty throughout the debate on this bill in trying to determine what was or was not relevant to the bill. One of the reasons for this is that the bill represents a hodge-podge of legislation. We find here everything from the CYC to family allowances, to the grain stabilization legislation, to research and development, and to changes in the
December 6, 1976

Transportation Act. Surely, this should be a lesson to the government to stop the silly nonsense of bringing in omnibus measures which cover a variety of issues which should be dealt with singly so that members can address themselves to specific issues. Quite frankly, I hope the government will stop this practice of putting forward omnibus bills in the hope that one or two measures will slip through unnoticed.
In this case there was one specific issue which the opposition did not want passed, and it required the government to give in. As my colleague the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain pointed out, the repeal of the "at and east" rates represents an attack on the major fabric of confederation. Similarly, any change in the Crowsnest freight rate structure is an attack on the major fabric of our confederation.
We have a government and a Minister of Transport who, in the name of a selective user-pays philosophy, attempt to dismantle those things which bind us together. 1 do not downplay for a moment the significance of this issue to the agricultural industry. This would clearly have represented another slap in the face for agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture thought that this was a silly proposal, but it is quite obvious that he has now lost any effective clout he may have had at one time in the cabinet. Rather than diminishing support for the flour milling industry, which this particular provision would have done, we should be dealing with a proposal which would strengthen the flour milling industry. The fact of the matter is that the flour milling industry in this country has diminished rapidly and it is unable to compete on international markets. The government seems to want to destroy it completely.
The flour milling industry is very important to this country. It provides jobs, it is important to the maritime region and, quite frankly, I find it very cruel on the part of the government to propose a measure of this nature at a time when we need to create employment in high unemployment areas. Many government programs are being advanced to overcome the high unemployment problem in these particular areas. On the one hand, by bringing forward a measure such as this, the government would have exacerbated the unemployment problem while on the other hand the Minister of Manpower and Immigration has brought in programs which are intended to create employment. That certainly does not strike me as a smooth and efficient running of governmental operation.
The report of the Auditor General has clearly outlined the inefficiencies and problems in this administration, and if its books are as bad as the manner in which it proceeds with legislation, God help us.


Mr. Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council is seeking the floor. Pursuant to Standing Order 37,1 should indicate that if he speaks now, he closes the debate.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say only a few words on this motion. I am surprised at the reluctance and the
Business of the House
obvious objection of the Minister of Transport in agreeing to this motion for the removal of the clause with respect to transportation. There has been considerable debate on the subject from all sides of the House and I do not think it was in the interests of a motion being accepted unanimously for the minister to say that while he is withdrawing this measure on this occasion because of certain circumstances, he is going to reinstate it.
I have never seen a minister more reluctant to change his mind than this minister. It is obvious that again, in this instance, he has been proved wrong by members of his own party, as well as by the effective opposition which has been put up by the official opposition and others in relation to this measure. But now the minister accepts these arguments with the statement that he is going to introduce this measure in some other manner.
This bill, and most omnibus bills which are brought in, indicate the weakness of the government and its inability to present legislation in a viable form. If it is necessary to bring in legislation in relation to a budget, I think the country understands the necessity to do that in terms of a number of items which are affected by budgets. This may be true with some of the legislation in this bill, but in the case of other parts of the bill, obviously there was no justification for bringing them in in this omnibus fashion. If an all-embracing bill is necessary, that seems to me to indicate the failure of the government to develop legislation which will stand on its own two feet. This has been the trade mark of this government for a number of years.
I was surprised by the argument of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain in which he took credit for what he believes to be a change in the whole fabric of our nation through transportation policy. He may be right that it has a tremendous effect, but I think he might have expressed it a little too strongly.
If there is unanimous agreement, it seems to me that probably the best course which could be embarked upon by all concerned would be to agree to pass this motion and go on with other matters, rather than the government taking the position that it had to do this today but is not committed to this course of action, and members on the other side saying they forced the government to do this. That does not seem to be any addition to the bill we have been discussing. It only highlights the weakness of the bill and, in my opinion, the inability of hon. members of the House to represent their constituents in an orderly fashion when there are a number of things we wish to support and a number we wish to oppose, and the bill gets bogged down in the discussion of individual factors without much hope of bringing about a major change in the legislation.
In fairness to itself, if the government really wishes to govern, in fairness to the opposition, if it wishes to be in opposition, and, much more importantly, in fairness to the people of this country so that they can sooner or later identify the issues of the day in this parliament, they should not be faced with bills they cannot understand which contain some-
80005-391/2

December 6, 1976
Business of the House
thing like a reduction in the indexing of family allowances. That affects them, and in terms of restraint on the part of the government, they know what the Auditor General has pointed out about the tip of the iceberg in many departments. If the government really wants to practice restraint, if it wants to make constitutional changes in the direction our country may go through its transportation system, and if the government is really interested-and we know how interested it is-it would have its ministers present for the debate.
It has been very difficult for the ministers involved with these various restraints to force themselves to attend in the House for this debate. If this bill belonged to an individual minister and he had some responsibility for it, he would stay and put up some arguments; and if the government had a good case he would try to make that case. However, it is not possible for all the ministers involved with a conglomerate bill such as this to be in the House all the time to answer objections raised which relate to their departments.
Therefore, I think this type of legislation is bad legislation, and if there is to be an orderly use of the time of the House this type of bill should not be brought before us again.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 37, if the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council speaks now, he will close the debate.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, in concluding the debate may I say briefly that I cannot agree with and do not accept the remarks made by a number of hon. gentlemen opposite- particularly the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, but others as well-to the effect that the motion I moved this afternoon is some sort of victory for the opposition. Let me disabuse them of any such notion. The motion is a procedural motion and does not represent a withdrawal from any principle represented by clause 15 of this legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Fine; then we will carry on the debate.


Ralph Goodale: This motion, which was extensively discussed by the House leaders and agreed to, will expedite the work of this House and will bring to an end this lengthy debate. Hon. members opposite have indicated today, I think fairly, that the discussion of this particular measure has now been going on for some considerable length of time. This motion will bring to an end-in due time as the motion points out-the debate on the measure and will lead to the savings indicated in the legislation.
Earlier today the Minister of Transport spoke about the substance of clause 15 and indicated his belief in the principle represented by that particular clause. He indicated, as well, his desire to return with that particular matter in another legislative form. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think the substance of the motion is clearly in the interests of the expeditious work of this House, and should commend itself to hon. members. Indeed,
[Mr. Peters.)
that really was the gist of the extensive consultation I referred to earlier today to which members on all sides agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is therefore proposed by Mr. Goodaie and seconded by the Minister without Portfolio. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 295, 329, 608, 766, 854, 895, 974 and 1092.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	For the Fiscal year 1975-1976, what contracts for professional services were let (a) for studies, surveys and analyses into present or future policies, programs or information analysis, and their efficiency and effectiveness (b) into the examination of the administration or internal operation of the Anti-Inflation Board?
2.	How much was committed on each contract and to whom?
3.	What were the comparable Figures for the Fiscal year 1973-1974?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1 and 2. See below.
3.	The AIB was not established until December 1975.
1. (a) What contracts for 2. Professional Services were let for studies and analyses into present or future policies, programs or information analysis?	How much was committed (1975-76)?	Committed to whom?(i) assistance and expert advice on the development and executions of an AIS communications strategy	$36,204.52	Pierre Fontaine et Associes; Conseillers en communications(ii) expert advice on the communications policy 1. (b) What contracts for professional services were let into the examination of the administration or internal operations of the AIB?	$ 4,016.53	C.D. Howe Research Institute(i) Review of the central planning and scheduling task and make recommendations for a continuing AIB planning function	$21,150.00	Department of Supply and Services, Project Management Centre(ii) Advice and assistance in the establishment of the compensation branch	$32,595.41	Herman Smith Human Resources
December 6, 1976

1. (b) What contracts for professional services were let into the examination of the administration or internal operations of the AIB?
(iii) Advice and assistance in the development of reporting systems	$ 8,000.00	N. A. Gemmell(iv) Development of a corporate planning policy	$12,387.00	Department of Supply and Services, Bureau of Management Consultants(v) Assistance in the development of the monitoring and analysis division of the compensation branch	$21,150.00	Department of Supply and Services, Bureau of Management Consultants(vi) Proposals concerning AIB organization	$17,250.00	Department of Supply and Services, Bureau of Management Consultants(viii) Development of a system for the recording of inquiries and board decision	$ 7,100.00	Department of Supply and Services, Bureau of Management Consultants(viii) Development of a case tracking system	$ 7,000.00	Department of Supply and Services, Bureau of Management Consultants(ix) Development of an operation manual	$ 3,025.00	Department of Supply and Services, Bureau of Management Consultants.


Mr. Herbert: For each of the past two winter seasons, what is the approximate average difference between the amount paid by a private home owner for heating oil, where this is the principal fuel used for heating, and the amount that would have been paid if fuel oil had been retailed at prices based on the cost of imported fuel at the time of use?


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: without oil import compensation, prices of heating oil would have been 17.0c. and 14.1c. per gallon higher in the 1974-75 and 1975-76 winters respectively. This represented savings for the average homeowner of approximately $153 and $127 in the respective winters, assuming an average annual heating oil consumption of 900 gallons for single-family dwellings in Ontario and Quebec.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	(a) How many regional offices are maintained by the Department of Public Works (b) where is each located (c) for what area is each responsible?
2.	On what date was each established and with how many personnel?
3.	What is the present personnel strength of each office?
Order Paper Questions
4.	In addition to regional offices, are district or other sub-offices maintained and, if so (a) in what locations (b) how many?
5.	Are the duties performed by those manning the regional and/or district offices line functions, in the chain of command from Ottawa to the operator in the field, or do they have other functions to perform and, if so, what are such functions?


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: 1. (a) Six. (b) Atlantic region, Halifax; Quebec region, Montreal; National capital region, Ottawa area; Ontario region, Toronto; Western region, Edmonton; Pacific region, Vancouver, (c) Atlantic region, Provinces of Nova Scotia; New Brunswick; Prince Edward Island; Newfoundland and Goose Bay. Quebec region, Province of Quebec with the exception of national capital. Ontario region, Province of Ontario with the exception of national capital. Western region, Provinces of Alberta; Manitoba; Saskatchewan and North West Territories. National capital, National capital area averages approximately 75 mile radius of Ottawa-Hull; Pacific region, Province of British Columbia and Yukon Territory.
2.	The regional offices were established on April 1, 1967. The department does not have records indicating personnel strength in 1967.
3.	Atlantic, 1,511; Quebec, 1,145; National capital, 2,293; Ontario, 1,292; Western, 1,074; Pacific, 812.
4.	(a) Atlantic, Saint John, New Brunswick; St. John's, Newfoundland; Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island; Goose Bay, Labrador, Fredericton, New Brunswick, (b) Five, (a) Quebec, Quebec City, Rimouski. (b) Two. (a) Ontario, London, Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay. (b) Three, (a) Western, Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Calgary, (b) Three, (a) Pacific, Whitehorse, (b) One. In the five regions listed above there are project offices which exist only during the construction stage of some major projects; in addition there are certain property management officers whose areas of responsibility require them to work on a detached basis, (a) Mirabel, (b) One. (a) London, England, (b) One.
5.	The duties performed by those manning the regional and/or district offices line functions are in the chain of command between Ottawa and the operation in the field. All headquarters functions have representation at regional level, but not all are represented at district level.


Mr. Stanbury: 1.	How many and what percentage of borrowers under the Canada Student Loans Plan are in default on their loans?
2.	(a) How many and what percentage of borrowers who have defaulted have made no repayment whatsoever (b) what are their names (c) what was their last known address (d) what were the dates when commencement of repayment of their loans fell due?
3.	What legal action has been taken against those defaulters who have made no repayment and with what results?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1. From inception of the plan in 1964 to September 30, 1976, some 720,000 students have borrowed under the

December 6, 1976
Order Paper Questions
program. Of these 47,029 (or 6.5 per cent) had defaulted as of the same date.
2.	(a) Some 16,000 (or 34 per cent) of the defaulted students have not made any payments on their debts to September 30, 1976. Of these cases 5,461 have been passed to our collection agency within the last six months and most of these are still being located by or are in negotiation with our agents. The balance (some 10,500) students have either not been located by our agents or are in contact with our agents but, for a variety of reasons are unable to make payments at this time, (b) and (c) It is not considered appropriate to disclose the names and last known addresses of those who have made no payments on their loans where judgment has not yet been obtained. (Where judgment has been obtained, the names and addresses are, of course, matters of public record in the various provincial or federal courts).
3.	Some 1,400 students accounts have been referred to the Department of Justice and a further 700 are in process of referral to that Department for legal action. To September 30, some 250 judgments have been registered and a further 250 cases have been settled by the student before going to trial. The remaining 900 cases are in various stages of the legal process.


Mir. McKinnon: What is the (a) military (b) civilian strength of National Defence Headquarters as of October 1, 1976?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: (a)
3,031. (b) 3,926.


Mr. Howie: 1.	How much has been budgeted for the Physical Resources Development Programme and how many applications for assistance have been received?
2.	Were any applications received from universities in New Brunswick and, if so, on what dates?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. A total of $2,500,000 has been budgeted for the Physical Resources Development Program over three fiscal years 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79. Of the total of 52 institutions that were advised of the program, twenty-one (21) institutions applied.
2. Yes. University of New Brunswick, April 11, 1975, and Universite de Moncton, May 2, 1975.


Mr. Andre: 1.	What is the 1976-77 budget of the National Council of Welfare?
2.	Was the report dated November 1976 and entitled The Hidden Welfare System prepared by the Council staff or by outside consultants?

3.	If outside consultants were hired for this project (a) who are they (b) what are their academic qualifications (c) how much was paid to them?


Marc Lalonde: 1. $275,000.
2.	Some research for the report was performed by outside consultants. The main research and the writing of the report was carried out by council staff.
3.	(a) Neil Brooks, (b) Professor of Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, (c) $3,125. (a) Denise Bellamy, (b) Law student at Osgoode Hall Law School, (c) $2,030.


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1974, have any government contracts for boot or shoe manufacture resulted in work for the Hartt Boot and Shoe Company at Fredericton, New Brunswick and, if so (a) how many contracts (b) what is the approximate value of such contracts?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Yes. (a) Four, (b) $528,000 (est.)
* *


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 325 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately. I would be glad to give the explanation of why the matter is being proceeded with in this way. The question asks for extensive details about the occasions upon which the Anti-Inflation Board has met. The answer consists of more than four pages of figures and other specifics. That is the reason for answering the question in this way.


Mr. Orlikow: Since its inception, how many times has the Anti-Inflation Board met and on what dates, for how long, and which members were present at each meeting?
Return tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 325 shall be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Do the other questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
December 6, 1976



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, November 30, consideration of the motion of Mr. Andras that Bill C-19, to amend or repeal certain statutes to enable restraint of government expenditures, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Holmes (p. 1393).
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, this patchwork, band-aid approach to economic restraint of government expenditure in Bill C-19 is an inadequate, inept approach to the economic malaise of Canada. I agree with my colleague, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), that it is in reality an attack on the partners of confederation, inflicting further confrontary wounds on confederation not just in the sense of the rail situation but also the larger question of revenue sharing. Not only is our confederation strained and weakened by the excesses of our national government; it is strained and weakened both by its excessive spending and by its inept attempts at restraint.
While I am pleased that the provision regarding the railway subsidy has been removed, it is appropriate-and it should be clearly remembered-that the province I represent in this chamber agreed to enter confederation on the condition of rail transport connecting and serving the union of provinces. The threat of decreased rail service through the subsidy removal is a further attack on the very premises of western confederation. Before this ad hoc, band-aid approach is further pursued, other real alternatives must be examined.
In Canada today the provisions of Bill C-19 are but a small part of the endless bombardment of the tolerance level of confederation ethics. As a result Canadians spurred on by this type of legislation are beginning to question the larger basis of confederation. Canada has developed an unhealthy paranoia with its concern regarding Quebec's current and future role within confederation. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) seems to see the solution through some excessive preoccupation and pursuit of an unworkable bilingualism program, blinded to the reality of the larger economic concerns-rail subsidy, family allowances, the aspirations of youth and the other social problems and concerns of Canada. We see personal and insidious grudge-match confrontation with the premier of Quebec, arrogant, ill-considered confrontation with the other premiers, and the vision of Macdonald's Canada begins to disintegrate amid petty parochialism and personal vendetta.
A new national perspective is needed now, not alternatives such as Bill C-19 that will weaken and further erode confederation, but courageous new vision to seek new proposals and understandings; to think with a freshness of the vigour and the vastness of our great country. The British North America Act has been, and continues to be, the cornerstone of our tradition
Restraint of Government Expenditures and our stability; and while no amendment formula has yet been achieved, Canada has continued to grow, to change and to evolve. New provincial boundaries have been established and adjusted regularly, even as recently as 1949. New responsibilities, like the environment, have been assumed and shared, and new revenue-sharing programs have been implemented with a flexibility not readily recognized in the BNA Act.
The potential of Canada, while currently somewhat dim and confused, is nevertheless as great as ever, but instead of playing with the same old hand-and Bill C-19 is a part of that same old, tired hand-it just may be the time to reshuffle the deck so the players can have a fresh look at a new hand.
While Canada is made up of a multiplicity of regions and cultures, it is my opinion that new, broad economic and cultural boundaries are beginning to evolve. Too often we consider only the regional culture of the French Canadian culture as contrasted to the English Canadian culture demonstrated by the traditions of Ontario. Any intelligent national perspective will show that if Quebec is a national cultural minority, in the same sense so are the maritimes a cultural minority, so are the prairies a cultural minority, so is British Columbia a cultural minority, and even patriarchal Ontario, as large as it is, exists as a minority amongst the other regions.
The maritime union study recognized the economic advantages of a regional unity, and Quebec, as a regional economic unit, has and continues to practice in this regionalized unit. Ontario, as the industrial heartland of Canada, has practised its own well-documented and pragmatic regional economic unitism since confederation. The prairies, combining its economic traditions as a major world bread basket, could well consider combining this long-term economic keystone with the currently depleting economic basis of oil, coal and potash. The isolation of British Columbia has built its own natural regional economic unit and pushed northward to reach outward to potential economic unity with the Yukon.
Canada unites naturally into five or six regions, not only culturally and economically but also geographically, in an obvious, broad manner. Politically, I cannot see a Canada with a special status for Quebec, any more than a Canada with a special status for British Columbia or any other individual province. I cannot see Quebec existing as a super province within confederation, further destroying an already out of balance interprovincial power structure.
Imagine, instead, five equal regional partners co-operating with a small but powerful central government in Ottawa. Consider a new revenue-sharing agreement where the provinces receive all of the revenue from resources as well as further tax points and, in return, deliver all services-health, welfare, education-more directly to the people of the region. Consider reorganizing equalization payments recognized by the central authority on the basis of direct payments to individuals according to income and need, rather than by region depending on their ability to govern. The potential and possibilities of the alternatives and combination of alternatives are limited only by lack of vision, tolerance and good will in the continued evolution of our great nation.

December 6, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures
This is a period in Canadian history that cries out for common sense, flexibility, openness, moderation and tolerance. The centralists criticize the plan as further decentralization, while the decentralization see it as excessive centralization. My concept is not necessarily the final one to be adopted; let it stand, rather, as one of many open alternatives to be discussed with positive and progressive courage. No matter whether they cherish the vision of Sir John A. Macdonald's "Sea to Sea", the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker's "one nation", or W. A. C. Bennett's original "five regions concept", I urge today that the leaders of our provinces and nation, like our Fathers of Confederation, put aside their petty parochialism and vested interests and become the statesmen streamlining the stable roots of confederation into the modern and progressive vehicle to carry us swiftly and smoothly into our next 100 years of unity.
That attitude is not evident in the piecemeal, bandaid approach of Bill C-19. We need to adopt a fresh approach to the various regions of Canada. I say this bill deserves to be defeated, not because of the provisions it contains but because of its lack of vision. Ultimately the bill will be sent to committee, where it will be debated, after which it will return to this House. While the bill is being so debated, I hope we shall hear more about a vision of Canada predicated on the needs of the larger regions rather than on the objectionable legislation as put forward in Bill C-19.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I was encouraged to listen to the speeches made on Bill C-19 by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) and the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). They spoke in support of the "at and east" rates, explained the difficulties which will be created for the east and the west and suggested ways of resolving such east and west difficulties. I suggest that the House owes those two hon. members a vote of thanks for their contributions. The essential purpose of bill C-19 is to restrain government spending, a subject with which the government is clearly unfamiliar.
Today I noticed that LIP grants for Kootenay West riding had been increased from $279,000 to last year's level of $608,000. In my view and the view of the Community Advisory Group, CAG, the money will be spent usefully in that it will help people in those pockets of unemployment in Kootenay West about which I am concerned. I am indeed grateful to the minister for this program; but, Mr. Speaker, I can think of at least one industry employing 90 people which has gone down the tube, so to speak, and which could have been helped. The industry in question manufactured and sold chain saws worldwide. Unfortunately, owing to a management misjudgment and dealings with a factoring firm, the company, Quadra Manufacturing, has met with financial disaster.
If only $200,000 of the extra LIP money granted to projects in Kootenay West could have been earmarked to help that industry, we could, instead of helping for three or four months people now unemployed, have guaranteed 90 employees steady employment for several years and an opportunity for that
[Mr. Wcnman.J
particular company to expand. I do not point the finger at ministers when we run into these difficulties, but what has happened clearly shows you the hidebound strictures placed upon ministers by senior civil servants, those insensitive, "go by the book" mandarins who run the government of this country.
What other industries are in similar circumstances? Surely a careful examination of business failures will reveal that some industries could be salvaged with a brief and not too massive injection of capital. Unfortunately, once a company is in receivership, government, the banks and just about everyone else turn their backs on the industry. And who is most affected by such business failures? The employee. The employee is affected in the long term and the investor in industry is affected in the short term, depending on his financial situation and how much he invested in the company.
I ask, how many businesses are now failing but could be saved if a program along the outlines I suggested were developed? How many jobs could be salvaged? I do not think the government has considered the question at all. I suppose hon. members opposite may say that such businesses can apply to the Federal Development Bank. Mr. Speaker, that high-risk organization is not about to open its doors to any company on the verge of receivership. I also ask, how many businesses are failing owing to the outflow of Canadian dollars to the United States? How can this government claim to be concerned about restraint if, through its actions and policies, it encourages the outflow of Canadian dollars to the United States?
For a change, let me refer to a success story, the operations of DREE in Quebec. I have often been critical of the DREE program and the amount of money injected by DREE into the province of Quebec. But an examination of the profile of development of secondary industry in Quebec indicates that the program has enjoyed a high measure of success. I suggest that if this government were truly aware of what is going on in the province, it might address its attention to that success story and emulate, with respect to all industries across Canada, what has been done by two or three people in the DREE organization in the province of Quebec. All Canadians, westerners and maritimers, alike, have been frustrated by noting the enormous volume of DREE money and tax dollars being poured into that particular province. But, Mr. Speaker, in all conscience I must give credit where credit is due. I challenge the minister responsible for DREE to go into the provinces, regardless of any federal agreement, and provide funds for industry. He does not need the agreement of the province concerned in order to do this. It is time he took such action.
I mentioned the outflow of Canadian dollars into the United States. This is another aspect of our financial position to which the government has not addressed itself. There is no question that Canada is faced with high labour costs. It can be argued that productivity here is lower than it is in the United States. Has the government looked into the reasons for these things, and addressed itself to the concern felt by the business commu-
December 6, 1976

nity with regard to the restrictions and amount of red tape placed upon manufacturers and producers?
Our party has declared that there will be a massive reduction in the federal government's involvement in the affairs of the small business community. Not too long ago a small industry in a community in my own riding wished to expand moderately-it was only a question of taking on six additional employees. But this would have brought the company under the wing of the AIB. Reports would have been required. The proposed expansion would have meant hiring another full-time employee and another part-time employee solely to handle reports to the AIB. I do not have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, what the decision was with respect to this expansion project. It was simply not worth it, and I could not agree more.
This is a classic example of the manner in which the government deals with small business. It has never accepted the fact that small business is the backbone of the nation. It might well be there are certain segments of the business community which are inefficient or counterproductive; no matter what injections of capital were provided, they would still fail, not because of labour costs but because of inefficiency and poor management. There is nothing that can be done to help this type of commercial enterprise.
To return to the point of debate concerning the outflow of Canadian dollars to the United States, I am particularly concerned with the cost of a number of Canadian products. I am thinking particularly of lumber, milled and finished, such as is produced in Kootenay West and in other parts of British Columbia. How is it that this lumber can be purchased much more cheaply in the United States than in Canada? The shallow answers I have received from the government to this question indicate that members over there would prefer to turn their backs on the situation and pretend it did not exist. They suggest the difference is due to transportation costs. Hogwash! When the mill is 20 miles down the road, how can they use that kind of phony excuse?
Then they say, "Well, it is volume buying." That answer is hogwash, too. In a great many cases the Canadian user with a mill nearby has the necessary market and is quite capable of buying in volume. I can think of one example involving a major undertaking to build senior citizens, homes. The contractor concerned went to Seattle, Washington, and brought back three flatbeds loaded with plywood sheets. After paying the duty, he was ahead one dollar a sheet-and you can get a whole lot of plywood aboard one flatbed. Thus, I discount the volume-buying theory.
If the reason for prices being higher in Canada than they are in the U.S. is that retailers here are charging excessive prices rather than working on a smaller profit basis, then the AIB is clearly failing in its function to apply a program of restraint and it is no wonder labour is frustrated as appearing to be the sole target of the board.
It is time the government got out into the country, talked to John Q. Public, listened to the opposition, grasped the fact that there is a problem out there and that there are a hell of a lot of dollars flowing into the United States, and that it will
Restraint of Government Expenditures take more than a 98-cent Canadian dollar to remedy the situation. So far, the government has shown itself hidebound in its responses. I have looked for some improvement, but I have come to believe that my hopes were in vain. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me a further opportunity to speak on Bill C-19.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I am sure many of the things I am about to say have already been said by others. But the comments made by the Auditor General are so alarming that they bear repetition over and over again. We have found from past dealings with the government, both in the House and in committee, that at no time do members on the treasury benches pay attention to anything that is said only once. Never have they taken action on a suggestion that is made to them on only one occasion. However, I recall several examples of occasions on which constant repetition of a point over a period of weeks, months or even years eventually makes it sink into their thick skulls. The statement of the Auditor General to which I would direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks, is this:
I am deeply concerned that parliament or, indeed, the government, has lost, or is losing, effective control over the public purse.
At no time in the history of this institution have we heard such a statement from an auditor general; and we have to remember that this gentleman is a non-partisan official responsible to parliament for examining the expenditure of any government which happens to be in power at a particular time. I suppose one could link this loss of control to which he referred with certain changes in the rules governing the method by which this institution considers government expenditure. A few years ago the estimates were studied in committee of the whole. At that time this House possessed the ability to extract answers from a minister as far as proposed expenditures were concerned. Ministers took this examination seriously. If a member asked a minister to explain why he was spending so much money on a particular item, he had to do so satisfactorily because if he did not questions could continue indefinitely, because Parliament at that time had the power to refuse to allocate funds to the government to carry on day to day business.
It was not so long ago that the greatest amount of damage to the rules was done, in 1969 or perhaps a little earlier, when estimates were taken out of the House and dates were set by which they were to pass. The net effect of this is very obvious when you compare the budget of the federal government in 1968 with the budget today. To refresh hon. members' memories, in 1968 the total budget was $10.8 billion. Today it is $42 billion, representing an increase of four times in a short period of eight years.
There is no doubt in my mind that this is clearly the result of ministers of the government no longer having to account to parliament for how they spend money. When questions are put to ministers during an examination of their estimates in committee, we witness the greatest display of stalling tactics one
1698

December 6, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures can imagine. Ministers give long, tortuous answers that do not provide any information, and sometimes even their advisers do the same thing.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, if the government is at all serious about wanting to show restraint in spending-and this bill is supposed to enable restraint of government expenditure to take place-that the government has really missed the boat. While this bill may indeed allow certain types of restraint to take place, in my view it is not of very great significance compared to bringing back to the House estimates for study. If the power and authority to study the estimates were given back to the House so we could hold up the proposed expenditures of the government until such time as all members of the House were satisfied that proper answers had been given by ministers about where expenditures were going to be made, this would be of significant benefit to Canada. Indeed, the government would have to indicate whether corrective action had been taken on former blunders pointed out in previous auditor generals' reports.
At this point I should like to make a suggestion, Mr. Speaker, though members on the other side pay very little attention to what we over here say; indeed, they sit there yacking away, not listening at all to what is said most of the time. I suggest that they should give serious consideration to giving the authority and power back to parliament to conduct a meaningful examination of the estimates each year when presented for study.
Other changes to the rules which in my view have resulted in less control over government expenditure are these. Standing committees are given the responsibility for studying estimates but, as I have already said, they have virtually no teeth at all. Government members are bent on speeding everything through, and opposition members on trying to make some sort of examination of the estimates, knowing full well that by a certain date all the spending proposals of the government will automatically pass no matter how hard they try to get explanations from the government or how much effort they put into trying to cut down some expenditures.
In standing committees in the past we have found that during the course of examination of estimates much information often comes to the surface which is worth thorough investigation of an impartial type. At the present time no committee has authority to conduct any kind of investigation unless and until a reference is made from the House itself; this, in effect, means the ministers concerned, which means the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself. So essentially we have a situation where the committees are virtually under the control of the Prime Minister.
If we uncover in committee evidence suggesting that some waste has taken place or that poor judgment has been shown in making expenditures, under today's rules the committee does not have authority to conduct a thorough and careful investigation into the matter. If we want to be serious about doing something to stop runaway expenditure on the part of the government, we must give standing committees the power to investigate without reference from the House, or from a

minister or the Prime Minister. I put this suggestion forward in a non-partisan manner. I believe this should be the case no matter which party is in power. If it were the case, I suggest we would have much less opportunity for waste or for dishonesty, perhaps, in the manner in which the government deals with public funds.
I do not think I should spend too much time reviewing many of the very glaring and wasteful expenditures described by the Auditor General, since we have already heard plenty of them. For example, there was the boat provided by the Canadian Commercial Corporation for CIDA, eventually costing nearly $1 million and which was rejected by the recipient country because it was an unstable vessel. There was the waterfront property in Vancouver that was leased at five times the rent that the previous tenant paid, with government having no visible use at all for the property. There was the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited expenditure of $15 million; and the unexplained revelations regarding Polymer and a whole host of other things. All of these could be subjects for investigation by committees, and this they could do if they had the right without restriction being placed on them in the form of a reference from the House itself. In my view, in the long run the effect of such authority vested in committees would prove very beneficial to the country as a whole.
I also want to touch on the subject of freight rates. I know it has been raised in this chamber on many occasions and was discussed at the western opportunities conference called by the Prime Minister a number of years ago. Anyone who has any interest in freight rates is already fully aware of the problems. As I have already said-and it is worth repeating because perhaps someone on the government side will listen-to hold this country together it must be recognized by our political leaders in the federal government and in each province that transportation and communications are the key. Indeed, they were the key that was largely responsible for bringing this country together in the first place. This is how our federal system was developed. The key to making the system work was recognition that wherever one lived in this country, whenever areas were developed and new land opened up equal treatment from a transportation point of view would be afforded. Everyone was to have access to adequate transportation on facilities in order to transport goods to market and to bring in whatever supplies were required to run businesses and agricultural enterprises.
Yet today, Mr. Speaker, it is transportation inequity and remoteness from communication which make our northern people so hostile to those of us who live in the south. Indeed, it is also inequity in transportation that creates a good deal of hostility among westerners and maritimers alike toward central Canada where freight rates are extremely discriminatory. I have the rates before me so as to illustrate in a little more detail what I mean. The fact is that freight rates are set up in such a way that manufacturing industries are encouraged to establish in central Canada, and discouraged from establishing in the western part of the nation or in the Atlantic provinces.

Let us take, for example, the cost of shipping a live steer from Saskatoon to Toronto or Montreal. The total shipping cost of a 1,000-pound animal is $30.92. If that animal were slaughtered and dressed in Saskatoon and all of the parts obtained for sale; that is the meat and various by-products were shipped to Montreal, the total cost would be $37.24. We have a difference of $6.32 per animal. If the animals are shipped live, there is a saving in transportation of $6.32 per animal. If you multiply that by several thousand animals, you will see it is a fairly significant difference. This difference favours the slaughtering and processing taking place in either Toronto or Montreal. I am sure that is a reflection of the fact that we have a rather lopsided House of Commons. I am not suggesting representation by population is not a good thing-I think it is the only way to go-but we know also that the majority of constituencies in this country are within the two major central provinces, namely, Ontario and Quebec.
This kind of shortsightedness on the part of government in power has resulted in discrimination in many areas, but transportation is the most obvious one. This is discrimination against the weak, and in my view is not a very charitable approach by government. Because there are fewer people in the west and in the maritimes the majority is able to abuse and take advantage of the relative weakness of these people in terms of numbers.
Let me refer to another example, that of rapeseed. When rapeseed is crushed you have various components; you have 38 pounds of rapeseed oil from 100 pounds of rapeseed, and 62 pounds of meal. The oil is shipped at a rate of 41.8 cents, and the meal at 23.5 cents. The rate is 59 cents from Thunder Bay to Montreal and represents a total cost of 93 cents per 100 pounds moving from west to Central Canada. If the rapeseed were crushed in Montreal and the product shipped in the other direction, the cost would be 67.5 cents per 100 pounds. This represents a difference of 25.5 cents per 100 pounds in favour of processing the rapeseed in Montreal, or a difference in freight rates of some 30 per cent. There is no explanation for that outside of its being plain, ordinary, bald-faced discrimination by virtue of a larger number of people in one part of the country and a government without the guts to speak up for all parts of the country and simply catering to the central part where the votes are.
The government should have the guts to explain the situation or stand for equity for all parts of the country. After all, we are all Canadians and we must be concerned about each other's economic and social welfare. Those are the comments I wanted to make in respect of freight rates. We also know that these freight rates have over the past 100 years resulted in obvious inequities. They have resulted in manufacturing industries being centred almost exclusively around the major population areas of Ontario and Quebec. I am prepared to suggest that this in large part is the result of the kind of freight rate structure we are experiencing in this country.
Let me move on to the matter of closure of rail lines to which this government has dedicated itself. There have been
Restraint of Government Expenditures
hearings held around the country and certain lines have already been closed or abandoned.


An hon. Member:: I thought you were in favour of restraint.


Paul Yewchuk: I am sorry, I did not hear what the hon. member said. I will give him a chance to speak when I have finished, and that will not be too much longer.
We have a situation today in which the unity of our country is in great danger. Transportation is a very important factor, not only in respect of the economic development of all parts of the country but also in respect of the development of unity in this nation. Certain rail lines were never completed. It is my suggestion that some line connections should be made. The hon. member opposite suggested that I should be in favour of restraint. My suggestion that some rail line connections be completed is in line with restraint, because this would cut down the cost of transportation in certain areas and in the long run would contribute to the greater development of these areas and the over-all economy of the nation.
Rather than established lines being abandoned, we must complete the construction of certain connecting lines in order to make northern rail services economic. Many settlers were induced to homestead on the prairies by the promise of rail connections by the CPR or the CNR. The Frenchman's Butte line running in an east-west direction has never been connected to another line running from Elk Point to Heinsberg. As a result, there has never been the efficiency that this line was supposed to have achieved. It seems to me we should be looking at ways of correcting these discrepancies in rail line construction in order to achieve greater transportation efficiency.
One can easily see there can be no sound and progressive development of the rich mineral and agricultural potential of northern Saskatchewan and Alberta without a viable transportation framework in this area. This is particularly true in that area of northwestern Saskatchewan and northeastern Alberta which takes in my own constituency. The only impediment to this framework is a rail line connection in the area running from Grand Centre and Cold Lake to a point in Saskatchewan in the vicinity of Meadow Lake. There is no doubt in my mind that if this connection were made, the cost of transportation in these areas would be substantially reduced. In view of the rapid development taking place in northern Alberta in relation to the sands, such a connecting line would substantially reduce the cost of shipping manufactured goods in from central Canada. This, in turn, would reduce the cost of constructing the tar sands plants, a cost that we all know is extremely high at the moment.
That brings me to an area in which I think the government is showing a good deal of shortsightedness. I refer to the development of the tar sands. In May, 1976, some six months ago, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) released a statement called "An Energy Strategy for Canada." In that paper he seemed to be taking the position
80005-40%

December 6, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures that our only hope for energy self-sufficiency-and we all agree we should be aiming for that, and can achieve it-was in exploration for conventional oil all over this country and perhaps in other parts of the world. He suggested that $40 billion would be invested in conventional oil and only $5.6 billion would be expended on tar sands plants.
I think we all agree that some conventional exploration is necessary because there are still deposits to be found, but we might compare the cost of that kind of exploration to the cost of extraction plants in the tar sands region where we know the resource is, where we know what the cost is to take it out, and where we know the cost of the plants. It seems to me there would be much more logic in taking a greater interest in the development of the tar sands.
I might elaborate on that a little. The requirements of this country are something like two million barrels a day, to use rough figures. We are producing about that much and are exporting a little less than half of it. Therefore, we import from offshore sources, to make up the difference. The price of offshore oil has developed in such a way that a hardship has been created for our country. It seems to me that if the government had enough vision into the future, it would be possible for us to be self-sufficient within one or two decades from now. This, however, would require a plan of action which must be implemented immediately and must be proceeded with at a fairly rapid rate.
I have mentioned the fact that we require something in the order of two million barrels a day. We also know there is one plant in operation at Fort McMurray which is producing
65.000	barrels a day, and that there is another under construction which will be completed in a year or two which will produce 125,000 barrels a day. So if we are looking only to replace the one million barrels a day that we are importing now, simple arithmetic suggests that perhaps nine plants would achieve self-sufficiency under today's requirements.
We know that our requirements are going up all the time, and projecting increasing needs it is still rather obvious that self-sufficiency could be easily achieved by fairly speedy development of the tar sands area. There are some 2,000 or
3.000	workers in the tar sands region now constructing a plant. It took a number of years to assemble the people and the equipment capable of constructing such a plant. At the moment, with the lack of interest the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is showing, it appears that there will not be another plant ready to go into construction when the present one is completed. This means that the crew and the equipment will disperse, and therefore contribute to the increased cost of another plant when construction begins.
So if we are concerned about expenditures in the area of energy production and considerable savings, then we should be interested enough to ensure that the new plant is started at least as soon as we would be required to keep that crew and equipment working without a break. Unless we take such action and adopt a policy which calls for rather speedy development of the tar sands, the prospect of our having self-suf-
(Mr. Yewchuk.]
ficiency by the end of the next decade or two is almost non-existent.
If we want to have self-sufficiency in respect of oil and petroleum by the end of the next decade, if we want to avoid the kind of prices we will be forced to pay for the imported product, and if this government is serious about trying to show restraint in respect of expenditures, then the government must be concerned about the situation on a long-term basis rather than the short-term basis. The government must be concerned about long-term savings for the taxpayers of Canada in this regard.
Another area relating to energy production is Petro-Can. This is a Crown corporation with a proposed initial budget of some $l'/2 billion. I shall not spend too much time today arguing whether Crown corporations are more efficient or whether private corporations are more efficient in producing energy; suffice it to say that private corporations have been in this business for a long time and have done a pretty good job of providing Canada and, indeed, the world with required energy resources. We all know that the private corporations have been pretty good taxpayers in this country and that the public purse takes reasonably good advantage of those taxes.
On the other hand, not only would it cost $ 1 !6 billion to get the Crown corporation off the ground, but once it is off the ground it will not be a taxpayer. As a matter of fact, it may well continue to be a drag on the public purse. In a time of restraint, it seems to me this is another area at which the government should take a serious look, particularly in terms of this $ 1V6 billion investment that is required to get this corporation off the ground and in terms of the fact that this corporation will not be paying taxes and, indeed, will not offer us any tax relief.
One other area on which I wish to touch briefly is that of scientific and medical research. I do not think there is a person in the world who would argue about the value of research. I can think of many examples where a certain amount of money that was expended in respect of the development of a new product, whether it be a drug, a new machine or a computer, resulted in manifold savings in terms of dollars. I will use the development of polio vaccine as an example. We have compared the cost of the research in respect of immunization with the cost of looking after polio patients who require iron lungs and long terms in hospital involving such medical and pursing care. The investment, in terms of research and development, in respect of polio vaccine represents a saving of 100 to 1. For every $1 invested, $100 has been saved. I do not say that all research produces this kind of spectacular result in terms of savings, but we know that in respect of medical research, with which I am most familiar-and I think this would apply to other scientific research-the savings ratio is 20 to 1. For every $1 invested in research for the discovery of new treatment, and so on, we have a saving of $20.
We have a government which seems to be totally incapable of comprehending the long-term savings which accrue from
December 6, 1976

active participation in a vigorous research program. We in Canada, for example, spend about one-sixth of what is spent by the United States, Holland, Sweden or Germany, on a per capita basis, on medical research. For some strange reason the former minister of science and technology, the hon. member for Westmount (Mr. Drury), seemed to think we did not have to have our own research programs, because through the charity of other countries which have such programs we could have the information free of charge.
That kind of approach is nothing short of despicable. Canada not only has a responsibility to the world for achievements in science, but it has a responsibility to its own citizens in that respect. If we talk about restraint, let me point out that you achieve long-term restraint in spending through research. Until the government accepts that as its basic philosophic approach, I am afraid that the band-aid measures proposed in Bill C-19 will have virtually no effect in restraining government spending.
Before concluding my remarks I should like to refer to the matter of national unity and the credibility of this government so far as its intentions are concerned. On the one hand it says it wants to restrain spending, and on the other hand it is not exercising its own recommendation. It has asked labour to restrain its demands for wage increases to about 8 per cent, yet its own increase in this year's budget amounts to around 16 per cent. The people of this country find it almost impossible to believe what this government says. I have some examples of that. Less than a year ago, in December, 1975, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said:
The new kind of society we will need to create in response to the new economic circumstances in which we are living here in Canada and throughout the world ... The free market system is not working and never really existed .. . The government must use controls to get institutions and people to change.. . We haven't been able to make even a modified free market system work in Canada ... It is the government's duty to intervene when necessary to stimulate employment, to redistribute income, to promote conservation, productivity and an adequate supply of the things we need-
Now, 11 months later, the Gallup polls are showing that this approach by the Prime Minister created a certain amount of suspicion towards his policies. So, in the throne speech he said:
Canada's traditional reliance on individual enterprise as the mainspring of economic activity ... Prices to be determined by the free play of market forces.
What we have here is an example of the attitudes that have been portrayed by virtually everyone in the cabinet over the past six or eight years. On the one hand they suggest that they will take a certain policy direction, and on the other they make a totally opposite statement several weeks or months later. Another example of that is the wage and price control program itself. In 1974 the Prime Minister campaigned, saying that wage and price controls would not work. Then, a year later, the government brought them in itself. The moral of all this is that the government should show some restraint in talking out of both sides of its mouth. If it did, perhaps it would show a tendency to restrain spending. People should know what the government stands for and they should be able to believe what the government says. If that were the situation, there would be much less unrest in the country and perhaps a
Adjournment Motion
greater desire on the part of labour and industry to co-operate in restraint in a general way.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Goodale), and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), while succumbing to the pressures of the opposition on Bill C-19, particularly on clause 15, finally agreed today to withdraw the clause. However, almost in the same breath both those hon. members made sure to point out to the House that the government would be introducing the same measure, namely, the repeal of section 272 of the Railway Act, in another bill.
We witness a great deal of arrogance in the House emanating from the government side, but for the Minister of Transport to withdraw this clause from the bill and in almost the same breath indicate to the House that he will be bringing in legislation containing the same measure is the absolute height of arrogance. The minister must have missed the whole point of this debate. The objections from this side of the House have centred around clause 15. They have been outlined by speaker after speaker on this side of the House and the objections have been supported by various farm organizations, by the flour milling industry, by the grain elevator companies and by many people associated with the movement of grain.
As the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) pointed out, and as I pointed out earlier, section 272 of the Railway Act is part of the very fabric that holds this country together. In my view, it is destructive for the Minister of Transport to have embarked upon a policy of a selective user-pay concept to bring about such a measure at this juncture in our history.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson)-Manpower-Suggested need for revision of publication "Canadian Classification and Dictionary of Occupations"; the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith)-Search and Rescue-Reason for delay in rescuing passengers from a damaged Twin Otter in the Arctic; the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke)-Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-Allegation of influence in granting mortgage to York Place of Hamilton.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills.

December 6, 1976
Merchant Marine



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. Raynald Guay (Levis) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of reviving the Canadian Merchant Marine and applying recommendations of the Darling Report.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as you are no doubt aware, hon. members are not surprised to see me rise to take part in the debate on the notice of motion I myself put before the House. I do hope, Mr. Speaker, this is the last time I shall rise to discuss the Canadian Merchant Marine. Some are annoyed to hear me repeat speeches I have been making for about 15 years but, Mr. Speaker, though some think that we need a merchant marine strictly to help out our shipbuilding yards, I say not so because last week-and I must take this opportunity to congratulate him for it-the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) came to my home to announce that the policy has been changed with regard to aiding the shipbuilding industry, that is the 13 per cent subsidy that applies to that industry.
That program, as we know, Mr. Speaker, used to apply solely to the construction of completely Canadian ships but as of today it will also apply to the renovation and refit of Canadian ships. So it is a matter of helping our shipyards which are now in a very precarious position. I am not speaking here only of Lauzon and the Davie Shipbuilding but also of Halifax, Vancouver, of Marine Industries Ltd. which now has orders to last it till the end of 1979.
In the motion, the government is requested to apply the recommendations of the Darling report as soon as possible.
Perhaps I should give a summary of the Darling report which, in fact, recommends the establishment of a Canadian merchant marine, and for several reasons. Here I have to digress and recall that the new premier of Quebec, Rene Levesque, came in my constituency and visited the shipyards employees during the electoral campaign. He came perhaps to promise the establishment of a Quebec merchant marine. I wonder then if Mr. Levesque knew the recommendations in the Darling report. Why do we hesitate? And this is the question I am asking of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Roy). Why do we hesitate? Maybe it is because Canada is not such a large country after all. But when I see Mr. Levesque, now premier of the Province of Quebec, promising the establishment of a Canadian merchant marine, I wonder if his speech to the employees was really serious.
But, what are we to do? After the elections of November 15, I said: "There they are, they have to govern, they made promises and they will have to account for them to the public at the next election. Therefore, they will be judged by their
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner).]
actions. The Parliamentary Secretary may tell me: We are still considering the recommendations of the Darling Report. But for several years, studies have been conducted not on costs but on the advisability of establishing a Canadian Merchant Marine.
As far as I am concerned, I have not yet seen anything to convince me that the government is seriously taking the Darling Report recommendations, which happen to suggest a positive attitude towards problems related to the establishment of a Canadian Merchant Marine, by strengthening authority, by giving real powers to a department or an agency whose main responsibility would be to establish a Merchant Marine, and to set up its various stages. I am not pressing for the establishment of a Canadian Merchant Marine any more than other hon. members do, nor am I advocating, as Mr. Levesque says, that: "The day after the separation of Quebec, we shall have a merchant marine." It is not so. I am taking part in this debate and asking the government to implement the recommendations of the Darling Report because I want us to put an end to the present confusion and powerlessness, because I am still wondering who must make the decisions. Is it the Treasury Board or the Department of Transport? Is it the cabinet as a whole or a committee of the cabinet? I dare hope that today we shall have some answers from the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Roy). So why do we speak of "real powers", of "taking initiatives"? That is what the Darling Report says.
At present, as I said a moment ago, there is no legislation or direct policy. No administrative guideline says whether we shall have a merchant marine or not. I already took part in several debates to ask the government to be more alert or at least head the recommendations of a report which was submitted to the government on February 5, 1975. Well then, are we going to get any guidelines or be told that this report is no longer relevant, that we need another one? What do we need? I am looking forward to these statements, I know several hon. members plan to take part in the discussion of this issue which is of great significance not only to our shipyards, but also to the reputation of Canada. We are one of the few countries with a such long coastlines and yet no merchant marine.
We have everything we need to develop one, Mr. Speaker, we have the equipment in our shipyards-and we all know the efforts made by many shipyards throughout the country to invest huge amounts of money to increase their productivity and enter the world shipbuilding market. Very interesting programs have been applied to assist ship exports. But our shipyards, either Marine Industries, Halifax, Burrard or any Canadian shipyard, are running out of orders and this is why we need some answers.
A coalition was formed recently to once more raise the issue of the establishment of a merchant navy as recommended in the Darling Report. I therefore urge the government, not to indicate that tomorrow they will accept those recommendations, and that tomorrow everything will be done to establish a merchant navy, but at least to state the policy they intend to put forward to bring about these recommendations.
December 6, 1976

It would be very important that a time frame be specified, as a five year period for instance. We should proceed by stages, as was done in the case of domestic shipping in Canadian waters, for which a five year period was provided, I do not ask that this be necessarily done over such a five year period, but the government should indeed make definite commitments to create jobs not only in our naval yards, but also on the ships themselves that will ply the oceans. This could help shipbuilding and Canadian trade. This was the area on which the Darling Commission put particular emphasis: helping Canadian trade, balance of payments and international image.
As I said in this House a number of times, public opinion is already sold on this. I therefor hope that it is one of the last times, if not the last, that I rise in such a debate. Public opinion, shipowners and media are already sold on this. They are well aware of the advantages and prerequisites, because there will no doubt be prerequisites to be establishment of such a merchant navy. First of all, we must consider all the consequences. We must examine the costs as well as the problems we shall be faced with, because we have obligations to meet. I am aware that we very often sell wheat to the Russians. In the contracts they sign, they will demand that their ships be used for shipments from Canada, thereby creating jobs for their merchant marine.
There will be also a streamlining of responsibilities, for this is really quite unclear. It will be necessary to have only one authority, and this time give it real powers which will permit Canada to create as soon as possible its own merchant marine.
Some hon. members have expressed concern about the situation in the shipyards. On November 5, 1976, on the occasion of Merchant Marine Week, there was an article by Mr. Henry M. Walsh, President of the Canadian Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing Association, which I should like to quote:
Merchant marine in Canada has not yet experienced all the effects of the sudden worldwide decline in merchant marine. Most of the large shipyards have orders that will keep them busy for about one year. However, middle-sized or smaller shipyards are already short of new orders, particularly those on the Pacific coast where the main customer is the forest industry which has not yet recovered from the worldwide economic recession and the decline in the building industry.
The Canadian Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing Association believes that the shipyard industry in Canada can expect a reasonably bright future in the long term provided government policies are implemented. However, the next two to four years will be critical and the association asked for help to be able to go through this period.
I think we got the answer last week when the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) came to announce this new policy, an amendment to the STAP program policy.
. . . The government was specifically requested to accelerate order placing for the building of coast guard boats and fishing patrol vessels. Many vessels of the Canadian government are old and obselete and the industry believes it is time to replace them. The government was also asked to provide incentives for building Canadian registered vessels through long term loans and guarantees which are presently available to foreign purchasers.
Those who take a close interest in this policy are well aware that we have a loan and subsidy policy which applies when we have to build ships for other countries. It is asked-a legitimate request, I suggest-that the same benefits be granted to
Merchant Marine
Canadian shipbuilders. The text is very long and I do not intend to read it all. Mr. Speaker, I might have a recommendation to make to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Roy). I wonder whether it would not be appropriate, and I will conclude on these remarks, that the Darling report be tabled before the Transportation and Communications Committee for immediate study, because I think this report is now circulating from one official to another but those who are really concerned, the elected representatives of the people, were not invited to discuss it in committee. I might certainly get unanimous consent from hon. members of the House to refer the Darling report and especially its recommendations to the Committee on Transportation and Communications.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the honoured position to congratulate the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) for his foresight in again bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I think the community of interest he refers to with respect to this bill is a very real thing. We on this side of the chamber commend him for his call upon the government to render some leadership or policy in regard to Howard Darling's treatment of this subject some two or three years ago.
Mr. Speaker, I will support this bill; there is no doubt about that, but what my colleagues en masse on this side of the House will do, I cannot say. I am not the party spokesman on transport, but simply the assistant to the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner)-the erstwhile, and sometimes not fully capable, assistant. In the past 10 or 15 years, however, I have spent enough time looking at the question of the necessity for a deep sea fleet to have some sense of it. As hon. members may know, I spent some years of my life at sea and I am aware of the capacity and capability of Canadians to operate such ventures.
This afternoon I will limit myself to one or two areas in support of the bill. First of all, on the basis of three or four months of fairly intensive work last year and in the early part of this year, we know there is no adequate statistical information available with respect to shipping movements. There is tons and tons of information, but it is not in a form that is readily usable in support of a motion such as this.
It took a long time to dig out and Finally prove a formula that could be applied to the drain of Canadian dollars out of the country with respect to shipborne imports and exports. We can start with the assumption, considering all the variables involved, that the cost of moving goods in and out of the country is roughly 10 per cent of their value. I am not about to go into the details of weighing the costs and putting them to the test, but in 1975, in terms of our balance of payments, we paid to foreign shippers something in excess of $2.7 billion and probably slightly under $3.4 billion. The variable comes into play with respect to how you measure certain movements.

December 6, 1976
Merchant Marine
If we use the $3 billion figure, then given the economic condition that exists in the country today, and given the state of the Canadian dollar, we just cannot afford to let that money go offshore: it should be recovered and brought back within the ambit of Canadian tax law. That is an important point, Mr. Speaker; it involves $2.7 billion, $3.3 billion or possibly, under certain applications of the formula, up to $3.4 billion. Nobody could indicate in five minutes what that would mean to the development of the Canadian marine fleet. We know the size of fleet we could build and how it would affect our balance of payments position. I suggest to hon. members that an important consideration to bear in mind is the money we are paying to offshore interests, be they in New York, London, Bermuda, Zurich, Greece-


An hon. Member:: Or Liechtenstein.


J. Michael Forrestall: If the hon. member's motion were adopted, the impact on Canadian shipyards would be tremendous. The hon. member for Levis indicated the precarious position in which Canadian shipyards may find themselves. If I were from the river ports, I would not cry too much; they, at least, have good prospects for the next two or three years. On the other hand, unless something happens in the Halifax shipyards they will be forced to close down next May and we shall lose 2,000 skilled workers. I know that shipyard difficulties are worldwide; yet we stand to lose, for the first time in 200 years, workers capable of engaging in the entire range of skilled shipbuilding activities. Once we lose them, we shall never regain them. We cannot afford to retrain other workers; in any event, I do not know where we would find them. Therefore, once we lost these workers they will be gone for good and we shall see no more like them probably for a generation. I fear this will happen unless the government shows a positive attitude toward the subject matter of the hon. member's motion.
I also fear that even if the government were to adopt the hon. member's motion, that adoption would not be translated into increased shipyard activity for six, seven or eight years. While that is lamentable, it is not totally regrettable because I feel that the approach to the re-establishment of the Canadian merchant marine should be, if I may quote, to let the industry find its own level. I am not sure if I am quoting myself; in any event, I will not attribute that remark to anybody else. The industry must be permitted to find its own level and it must find a way of operating within our system.
It would do that if the government would show a positive attitude with respect to the Darling report and implement two or three simple suggestions. The government should consider the matter of taxes which drive Canadian-owned and managed shipping enterprises offshore. If we could bring back to Canadian registry ships of Canadian Pacific, MacMillan-Bloe-del, K. C. Irving, on the east coast, and others, we would be going a long way to re-stablishing the Canadian merchant fleet. Therefore, we must reconsider existing tax laws and change our attitude with respect to financing policy which extends to foreign buyers the Export Credit Corporation low

rate of interest with respect to ships built in Canada. We must look at that again.
We must make clear our attitude with respect to the coastal trade of Canada. In that connection, I was personally pleased to note that the minister undertook to bring the maritime code back to the House without those provisions dealing with the coastal trade. I hope we can deal with the matter quickly, possibly before we adjourn for Christmas, so that we can deal with the other parts of the bill in the new year. Hopefully, we shall receive the views of those engaged in the coastal trade before the bill receives final approval next spring.
We must also consider the matter of excessive pilotage fees and overly stringent regulations. I say this because a foreign master regularly calling at the port of Halifax no more needs a pilot than he needs the man in the moon. Indeed, we run a grave risk by always insisting on a pilot. The winter before last, during the so-called energy crisis, a tanker stood off outside the entrance of Halifax harbour because there was a pilots' strike. During this time, probably one of the most competent masters with respect to the port of Halifax stood by, afraid in case a change of wind would make the tanker broach or run aground on the rocks off the island which was lying close to the ship. I say that a competent master could have sailed her in without difficulty. The port is a safe one. I therefore say that we must reconsider our overly stringent regulations, the matter of excessive pilotage fees, current financing policy and tax policy. I mention tax policy because of the hesitancy of Canadian entrepreneurs who but for our tax policies would be willing to participate in a Canadian merchant marine.
Let me touch on one or two areas of concern. I should like to see the subject matter of the motion referred to committee. I hope it will not be laid aside in the peripheral work of the committee, as my proposal for the establishment of an independent inquiry commission with respect to transport accidents was laid aside. I hope it will not be swept under the rug, as was the case with my proposal. The transport committee has one piece of work to do until next spring. I think consideration of the subject matter of the motion would be most useful. Indeed, I think the committee would be remiss in its duties if it failed to consider the matter.
Those who oppose the idea of a Canadian merchant marine argue that if we were to adopt such a merchant marine we would price ourselves out of world markets. Let me say at once that at one time ships involved labour-intensive operations; now they are capital intensive, something one should bear in mind considering present-day fuel prices and the worldwide competition among shipyards. It is interesting to note that as of 18 months ago Canadian crew wages were 10 per cent lower than those paid to United States crews, about 9 per cent higher than those paid to U.K. crews, 15 per cent higher than Greek rates, 10 per cent more than German rates, and on a par with Norwegian and Swiss rates. Therefore, crew costs are no longer a significant factor militating against Canada's establishing its own deep sea fleet. Crew costs per day average somewhat less than 25 per cent of shipping charges. Every-
December 6, 1976

thing else is world-wide and more or less on a par. I hope members will allow this measure to reach fruition this evening.
In closing, I should like once again to commend the hon. member for Levis for his initiative. I hope he will not lose his interest as the days go by, or become discouraged because his government is blind to what is necessary in this vital sector of our economic life.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I too will try to be brief. Like the hon. member who preceded me, I congratulate the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) for having raised this issue. I hope his doing so will inspire the government to give a much higher priority to this measure than has been given since a similar one died on the order paper last session.
I was sorry to see that bill die on the order paper. It had within it the seeds of a new and useful industry particularly at a time when the nations of the world, because of the extension of our jurisdiction over the continental shelf, are now in a race for development opportunities. One of the recommendations in the original Darling Report was that marine activities in connection with dredging, salvage, seismographical supply and support in offshore drilling should be an entirely Canadian operation within the Canadian economic zone. We are now talking about an enormous area of ocean. If ever there was a reason for bringing a bill back into the House, that is it. When we extend our jurisdiction over the zone, in January, 1977, foreign manufacturers who are already far ahead of us in deep-sea technology will be taking that industry away from us unless we move quickly.
Where I come from, in the lower mainland of British Columbia, we already have some sophisticated underwater technology. Some of our people are as good as any in the world in developing diving equipment. I notice that the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Lee) is here. I am sure he is aware of the activities of the people in his own riding who have developed the special skills which are necessary in this area. I shall be glad to hear him support the bill when the time comes-I understand he intends to speak. This aspect is one we have not dealt with to any extent in the House so far because the move to extend our territorial responsibilities was considered as coming some time in the future. But the future will rapidly be upon us. It will be here in January, 1977, and it is vital that the bill get back to the House so that the new technology, the new drilling which is to take place on the ocean bed, is done by Canadians. We need those jobs in a desperate way.
I do not want to be a complete Pollyanna about the legislation. There is the argument to be faced that we could see some slight increase in transportation rates as a result of the adoption of the bill. Because much of our lumber in British Columbia is carried by rail we heard the statement made by the previous minister of the environment that Bill C-61 would result in those rates increasing directly by some 30 per cent because of the lack of competition. This is a difficulty which could be solved by regulating rail rates for the carriage of
Merchant Marine
products internally in Canada. We could then proceed with what we should have been doing years ago, that is to say, developing a Canadian merchant marine. The adoption of the recommendations in the Darling Report should be the beginning of that process.
Some time ago I put forward a motion having to do with the sad situation in the shipyards of British Columbia. Lay-offs in some of our shipyards have been as high as 90 per cent of employees. None of the yards is operating at capacity. They are all patiently awaiting the government's announcement of requirements for new search and rescue vessels, and so on, in connection with the 200 mile zone. What they need is a real shot in the arm as the beginning of a long term policy which says that Canadian products should be carried on Canadian vessels between Canadian ports. The spin off benefits from a decision of that kind would be immense.
We sometimes forget that in the second world war Canada was one of the largest ship manufacturers in the world. Today we are well down the list. We could come back, because we have the technology which is capable of competing with countries such as Norway and Sweden which have proved themselves extremely successful in providing deep-sea shipping. The decline in the value of the Canadian dollar has been an asset in terms of selling our goods abroad. If there is some marginal increase in transportation costs it is likely to be more than offset by the decline in the value of the Canadian dollar, and there is every indication that our dollar will stabilize at about 95 cents. The hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) referred to the balance of payments question. That is certainly a point which has complete validity in arguing the case for carrying our own products. To eliminate a significant proportion of the millions we are spending on foreign carriers would bring us some hope of seeing this balance of payments problem corrected.
We have heard industry spokesmen complain they cannot possibly compete in world markets if their transportation costs are raised. I think that if industrial leaders would look objectively-and I am thinking now of the B.C. lumber trade-at present transport rates and possible rates in the future, they would come to the conclusion that the positive effect on the thousands of new jobs which would be created if the hon. member's proposal were carried out would more than offset any minor adjustment in terms of railway rates. I might add that I myself, as one member of parliament, will be happy to support legislation which would prevent any untoward increases.
Again I congratulate the hon. member for having raised this issue. He has the support of the majority of the party to which I belong. I am not sure about the official opposition, but I believe there are many people there who would support Bill C-61. Certainly this is a question which should be back under discussion.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few remarks about the motion of the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) not because I want to kill it-I hear

December 6, 1976
Merchant Marine
someone warning me not to do so-but simply because I want to congratulate the hon. member for Levis for proposing this motion.
I think that the government is once again invited to study that problem. I say "once again" because for many years I have heard people talking about the merchant marine. When I was elected to the House of Commons I was really chocked to see that 100 years had elapsed since Confederation and we were still considering the creation of a merchant marine. We rightfully claim to be an exporting country, however, we still accept to use foreign ships to export our raw resources. Somebody said earlier on that it cost us $3 billion each year to export our raw materials, which is quite an interesting figure. I even wonder why private firms never tried to study that problem. Today, in spite of our facilities, the government helps the lumber or the mining companies. I think it would be quite natural for the government to grant assistance to sea transportation too and it should come to an agreement with the private companies interested in that field so that joint associations could be created which could, once for all, create a merchant marine on Canada.
Earlier on, the hon. member for Levis said that before the last election the new premier of Quebec had promised to create a merchant marine. I had never heard that! He has promised to create a merchant marine. That is not much worse than what the federal government did: it has made promises for 50 years and never fulfilled any of them. He made that promise. It would be most ironical if he fulfilled it just for one ship, which would be a pretty good lesson for the federal government.
Mr. Speaker, Canada cannot do without this industry, we have been discussing for 40 years the cost-efficiency of a merchant marine. With our present capabilities, we invest into all fields of transportation. We are obliged to invest. People say we are obliged to do so. Maybe we would not be obliged to invest billions of dollars in supersonic aircraft, we should simply let the United States do the work, as we do for all other fields. They are the masters in all fields. We should let them run our national defence. They will defend us if we are attacked. It is no use investing billions of dollars in those fields. They will come and defend us because they have a 90 per cent interest in the Quebec or Canadian industry-and particularly the Quebec industry-because they own it.
What is the use of investing billions of dollars instead of using some of them to develop a merchant marine? Many small countries have their own fleet, and they manage well. It is profitable. If it is so for those small countries, I think it should be the same for Canada, which has so many natural resources to offer to other countries. I even think that Canada is one of the major shippers of raw material.
Well, I think that the motion before us today has lost none of its timeliness because, although the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) says that he is introducing it for the last time, if again it fails to pass, I think he should be obstinate enough to

introduce it once more, for when you hit a nail on the head, you are sure to drive it in. With governments-this one just as any other-I think we must repeat our requests. This is how we will finally get our famous merchant marine which everyone has been clamouring for. I already rose on this matter in the 15 years I have been in this House and I would be very happy if everyone would agree and adopt this motion.


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to entend my congratulations to the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) for presenting this motion, and to the hon. members for Dart-mouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) and for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) for taking part in this debate during private members' hour.
Mr. Speaker, I would first refer to the statement of the hon. member for Levis, who was worried about whether his motion annoyed hon. members and expecially the Department of Transport. Let me tell the hon. member for Levis that his concern is ill-founded. The situation is changing all the time and we take a close look at all changes in world shipping.
The hon. member for Levis said that promises were made during the Quebec elections concerning the Quebec merchant marine. For his information and that of the hon. member running at that time for the Quebec provincial leadership, I would simply like to quote figures concerning the cost of government intervention in shipping. The study of the U.S. Commerce Department entitled Foreign Maritime Aids, shows that it is very costly to subsidize a fleet. For example, in 1972, the United Kingdom subsidized its shipping industries at the rate of $550 million, over and above added value tax exemptions worth some $37 million. The hon. member for Roberval said, if I read him right, that the merchant marine even made some savings possible, and that it was not so to be considered an expense but an investment. I would like to draw to the attention of the hon. member the situation in Japan where the government subsidized its shipping industries at the rate of about $500 million a year, and allocated in 1973 $278 million for the purchase of ships for Japanese nationals.
If I may once again refer to the study on the importance of the merchant marine for Canada, I am convinced that, as the hon. member said, Canada has a real advantage when it comes to shipping because of its Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic coast lines. And that situation serves it quite well commercially since Canadian importers and exporters have several options open to move the goods they control. Mention should also be made of the presence of the Great Lakes in the middle of the continent; they represent a real inland sea and assure a shipping link essential to the existence and the development of the centre of the country. So it seems somewhat paradoxical that in spite of such a favourable geographic location Canada should not have a more sizeable fleet of ships plying international waters. However we do have an important fleet on the Great Lakes and the west coast.
December 6, 1976

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to continue the history of the merchant marine but I would like to recall certain economic factors showing the significance of transportation and give a few figures on the Canadian shipping trade. I would like to indicate that in 1974 the following tonnage was registered in Canadian ports: 67 million tons on the import side, and 117 million tons on the export side. So the total international trafic was 184 million tons in 1974. Of that total 74 million tons represented our shipping trade with the United States-40 per cent. In the early 50s the Canadian international trafic was only about 70 million tons.
Those few figures illustrate rather well the growth in our external trade but also show our dependence on foreign fleets handling our business. In 1974 Canadian registered ships moved 44 million tons of freight-24 per cent of the total- but the majority of that freight was to or from the United States. It must be pointed out on the other hand that most foreign registered ships belonged to industrialized countries and Canadian allies. So the risks of an abrupt and violent upset in our shipping trade are rather limited.
I will now deal with world changes. It is unlikely that the policy of non-interference and free competition carried on by Canada since World War II will continue much longer in view of world wide disruptions in shipping.
More and more, countries all over the world give nearly unconditional support to their merchant marine. Some want prestige, others regard this as on opportunity to stock foreign currencies which are required for their balance of payments, while others want to increase their national security. At the same time, protective measures are taken, and there is some talk about sharing the shipping among trading countries, and bilateral or multilateral maritime agreements are being considered. the most significant of these developments is probably the proposal to the United Nations for the setting up of an operational code concerning shipping lines operating whithin the framework of conferences, which would divide trade in the following manner: 40 per cent for the exporting country, 40 per cent for the importing country and 20 per cent for the third country. Canada may easily be affected by such developments and could find itself restricted by foreign fleets which could increase their freight while our shippers would be unable to adopt counter measures.
I would now like to come back to what the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) had to say about the Darling Report. Recognizing the vulnerable position of Canada in the maritime sector that I mentioned the Department of Transport asked Mr. Darling to report on the maritime situation in Canada and to recommend action. Following his researchs which were carried out during the summer of 1974, Mr. Darling submitted a report which recommends the need for Canada to take a more positive stand on shipping and to recognize the necessity for a better formulation of a Canadian policy concerning international shipping; along the lines the hon. member for Levis mentioned in his speech. Contrary to what many people may think, the Darling Report does not necessarily urge the
Merchant Marine
establishment of a Canadian merchant marine, but recognizes that certain national interests go beyond the traditional commercial context and that certain problems cannot be solved within a market economy.
Mr. Darling does not reject the possibility of developing a merchant marine as it is a possible option, but he does not suggest a major marine reconstruction. I wish also to mention a few achievements in that field. I shall come back to a point raised by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) concerning costs. I think it is too early to evaluate the possibilities of major changes but several factors indicate that the traditional differences between Canadian and foreign costs could continue to decrease. For instance, the industry becomes increasingly capital intensive and the cost of manpower represents an always decreasing part of the total cost. On the other hand, the action of international sea farers unions toward wage parity for the crews of different countries should help a nation like Canada become more competitive than we are now. Those developments are international but here in Canada, trade unions have shown a very positive and constructive attitude regarding the expansion of our marine activities. However this outlook should be evaluated on a rather long term and the move toward a larger Canadian fleet should be progressive and possibly rather slow as required by the present economic situation.
I shall mention a very precise aspect, which is the M. V. Arctic vessel, one of the most concrete aspects of Canadian interest in the marine field. I want to speak about the icebreaker M. V. Arctic which is under construction in the Canadian shipyard of Port Weller in Ontario. This vessel will cost about $40 million and will be ready by May 1978. A consortium of private corporations supported by strong government participation will ensure the operation of that vessel. We hope that this prototype will demonstrate the economy of operation of that type of vessel and will be the start of a very strong Canadian presence in Arctic waters. A Canadian marine activity represents a support and supplement to the mining and economic activities in this developing area.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude my remarks on the same concrete note. I would like to point out that many recommendations of the Darling report have already been considered by the government and that through the Shipping Advisory Board it has been possible to co-ordinate federal activities in shipping. We are more and more inclined to deal with countries whose policies have direct effects on our external trade. Canadian shipping companies operating internationally now can submit their views to Ottawa on their new role in a new structure.
As I mentioned earlier, the building of the M.V. Arctic and the efforts made to restrict coastal shipping to Canadian vessels are true indications of the government's will to consolidate the position of Canadian shipping operators. However it would not be advisable to build a merchant fleet without being sure that Canada would derive direct or indirect benefits. The fantastic costs of government assistance require great care and point to the need for a sound analysis of all element of our

December 6, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures
international shipping policy. Mr. Speaker, once again I would like to thank the hon. member for Levis for discussing that situation which, as I mentioned earlier, is always changing, and I can assure him that his representations will certainly be drawn to the attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang).
May I conclude by declaring that it is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Levis.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Will the hon. member permit a question even though it is now six o'clock?


Marcel-Claude Roy: Yes.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: As the Darling report will be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, can the parliamentary secretary answer immediately or will he put that recommendation to his department?


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, I think that if I had had the time to deal with that point, I would have mentioned coastal traffic but I would have also referred the hon. member to Bill C-61 which will be sent to the standing committee on transport and I think I can assure the hon. member that whenever we resume consideration of Bill C-61, which is pending, we will be able to consider this possibility.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Andras that Bill C-19, to amend or repeal certain statutes to enable restraint of government expenditures, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on

Miscellaneous Estimates; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Holmes (p. 1393).
Donald Frank Mazankowski: As I indicated before the dinner adjournment, Mr. Speaker, one of the primary reasons that we on this side of the House took objection to Bill C-19 was the application of the selective user pay concept which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) has adopted in terms of overhauling the transportation policy, and in so doing he has threatened to destroy the basic fabric which holds this nation together. In that connection I am very pleased to see the Minister of Transport in the House. We would welcome his participation in this debate.
It is interesting to note that today when we are debating Bill C-19 dealing with section 272 of the Railway Act we have been informed that the Snavely report has been tabled, a significant report in which I am sure everyone connected with grain transportation will be interested. For those hon. members who may not know what the Snavely report is, let me explain that the Snavely Commission was established to look into the cost of the movement and handling of grain.
As pointed out in the press release of the Minister of Transport today, its primary task was to identify the total costs and revenues to the railways of transporting grain under temporary conditions. Its second task was to evaluate railway costing practices, using the Canadian Transport Commission cost order as a base, and to identify and review any related grain costing issues.
I think that all hon. members will look upon this document as being very important in dealing with the issue of determining what is and what is not a fair rate to be applied to the movement of grain. It seems to me that when we discuss any freight rate changes for the movement of grain, and when we engage in any sort of informed or intelligent discussion or debate upon the revision of any freight rate structure in this connection, it is of the utmost importance to have this information before us. I have not had an opportunity to assess or study the findings of this report. Only the minister has this information at his fingertips.
The minister indicated today that he will be proceeding with the introduction of a bill which would in fact repeal Section 272. He went on to point out that then we will be in a position to deal with this issue on its particular merits, and we will have all the cost data available and we will be able to determine exactly what it would cost the Canadian taxpayer. I will welcome that opportunity, but up until now we have not really had that information, and the Snavely Commission will certainly provide us with the kind of data I think we require to look into this and to assess the impact of any restructuring of freight rates in connection with the movement of grain.
The thrust of Clause 15 of Bill C-19 to me is another slap in the face of agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has pointed out in many speeches-I do not know of any other minister who makes as many speeches as the Minis-
December 6, 1976

ter of Agriculture, but I had the occasion this week end to read about a dozen speeches he made throughout the country in the last week or ten days-that only 2 per cent of the federal budget is allocated to agriculture. He points out that in the EEC something like close to $9 billion is being allocated to the development and maintenance of the viability of the agricultural industry. He points out that only 6 per cent of our population is associated with the direct production of agricultural products, and yet this 6 per cent generates some $5 billion worth of direct business activity in terms of the purchase of machinery, the purchase of repair parts, tires, fuel, etc. Surely that is a very important industry in the over-all economic picture of this country.
The minister pointed out further-and 1 agree with him in this connection-that some 45 per cent of our gross national product is related to agriculture and other activities ancillary to the agricultural industry. I see the parliamentary secretary in the House. I know he agrees with me, and he should, because I am quoting his own minister. Having said that, one would think that hon. members opposite would be rising in their places and defending the interests of agriculture, but what this bill is doing is destroying a very important element of the agricultural industry and an industry which is associated very closely thereto. Rather than withdrawing the special freight rate which Clause 15 undertakes to do, it seems to me that the government should be considering ways and means of assisting that particular industry, namely, the flour milling industry.
I pointed out earlier this afternoon when I participated in the debate on the motion which was introduced by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Goodale) that the opposition to this legislation did not spring up overnight. The opposition to this legislation has been well known and well documented for a long period of time.
I recall that on March 19 I raised a question in this House relating to the impact which the removal of the transportation subsidy on grain and flour shipped from our eastern coast ports would have on this very important industry. It was a policy decision at that time which I thought was wrong, and which I considered should be reversed. In responding to the question I advanced at that time the Minister of Agriculture left the impression that the flour milling industry was indeed a dying industry for export purposes. He implied that as far as we as a nation are concerned it was better for us to ship the raw product in the form of wheat rather than to worry about the processing of it in the form of flour. It is this sort of shallow attitude in the government which I find very disturbing. It is an attitude which has led to what I believe to be a major slump in the manufacturing industry, and it has caused us to slide into a major crisis. I am sure it has contributed to the very serious trade deficit we recorded in 1975 of some $8 billion in the so-called higher technology manufacturing field. That was $1 billion worse than it was the year before.
What does this mean? It means a loss of jobs, a loss of economic activity, and a loss of opportunities for present and future generations of Canadians.
Restraint of Government Expenditures
When we look at the flour industry and see what has happened to it on a global basis, and then when we examine what has happened to Canada relative to that world position, it is a very revealing exercise. World demand for flour has expanded from 65 million cwt. in 1954 to 95 million cwt. in 1974, an increase of 50 per cent. During this time Canada's share of this trade declined from 31 per cent to 11 per cent. In 1954 Canadian millers were exporting some 20 million cwt. annually. In 1975 our exports dropped more than 50 per cent, to some 8.5 million cwt.
In this connection the Minister of Agriculture indicated that the flour milling industry was a dying enterprise and that there was no hope of ever recovering it. Well, as far as the Minister of Agriculture's comments on the matter are concerned, I can only say that he is simply not looking at the potential which is available. For his information it was only Canada and Australia which experienced substantial declines in the export of flour. As far as the United States is concerned, its share has not fallen appreciably from its 1954 level. As a matter of fact its share has increased.
The European Common Market-and this is where there is a great deal of subsidy and a great deal of support for this industry-has expanded its exports from 15 million cwt. in 1954 to 64 million cwt. in 1974. Therefore to suggest that world export demand has fallen is simply sheer nonsense.
The actions which the government proposes to take as far as the removal of this particular subsidy is concerned would have the effect of increasing the freight costs to Canadian millers by 212 per cent. This cost has to be added to the cost of flour which is exported, and therefore it will have a very disastrous effect upon this very important secondary manufacturing industry.
As I said earlier, hon. members opposite have constantly suggested that we on this side of the House have had nothing to propose in the way of positive suggestions or positive alternatives.


Mr. Pelletier:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am surprised that the hon. member has not engaged in this debate because his own minister disagrees with this proposal.


Irénée Pelletier: I am just waiting for you to say something.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The hon. member wants us to say something. If he followed the debate in this House he would realize that there are some in this parliament, in this country, who are concerned about industry, about secondary manufacturing, and in particular about the flour industry. I want to assure the House that this concern is not coming from members on his side.
I indicated earlier that suggestions had been made from this side for restraint, but hon. members opposite have short memories. In May of this year in the budget debate the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) pointed out to the

December 6, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures
government in clear terms where we could slash over $1 billion from the estimates. We proposed that this could be used to give a substantial tax cut to Canadian taxpayers. We also indicated that some $500 million of that $1 billion slash in government expenditures could be used to reduce the deficit. Members opposite scoffed at the idea and did not take us seriously.
It is very interesting to note in the debates of the House that on November 19 the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) pointed out that there was confidence that the government could meet its budget outlays of $42,150 billion during the year. As reported at page 1199 of Hansard he said:
Indeed, we feel we have won some room for flexibility in terms of our spending programs. We are in the process of considering a possible redirection of some of those fiscal resources into areas that would respond to the needs of the economy, particularly the concern I cited with regard to regional unemployment and unemployment among certain constituent groups in the work force.
It is unfair to suggest that we were being less than frank and serious in advancing some very positive suggestions about where spending cuts could be made. Now we see that the Minister of Finance indicated there was indeed room for restraint in that particular area. This is a great turn around- not the greatest because this government is noted for its flip flops. It would be interesting to know where this flexibility has taken place. How was it arrived at, and how much money has the government got to play with? When we talk in broad terms, such as the Minister of Finance suggested, it would be interesting to know how much money he is talking about. Why do we have to approve additional supplementary estimates if there is sufficient money to play with?
Hon. members opposite say that we cannot have both restraint and the programs-that it is a matter of priorities and finding where the logical cuts should come. Let me remind hon. members opposite that in April and May last a number of proposals were advanced to the then president of the Treasury Board in connection with a number of items we located in the estimates which we considered eligible for trade-off in lieu of clause 15 of this bill. There was an exchange of correspondence between the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and that minister, so to suggest that we have not advanced any positive alternatives is folly.
This bill could have been disposed of a long time ago.


An hon. Member:: Right on!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: There is no question about that. My hon. friend, the Minister without Portfolio from St. Boniface (Mr. Guay), was instrumental in bringing the government to its senses in this connection and should be commended for it, because you just cannot talk to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). We have advanced very clearcut proposals about where we were prepared to initiate the cutbacks. For members on that side to suggest that we have not had a positive approach is nonsense. We could have been debating a lot of other important measures, but the government refused to come down from its ivory tower. The government, particularly the Minister of Transport, is intransigent

and stubborn. As a member of parliament I make no apology for drawing this debate out.
Someone remarked to me that the Minister of Transport is a unique character because he never loses an argument, but convinces no one. I thought that was apt.


John Edward Broadbent: You are half right.


Irénée Pelletier: What is the punch line?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier) asks for the punch line. It was probably delivered back on March 22 when he tried very stoutly to defend the government's action in removing section 272 of the Railway Act which is contained in clause 15 of this bill. He supports this measure and that is recorded very clearly. The hon. member has made his punch line so he need not speak further. I am sure his constituents will take note of that in the next election.


Irénée Pelletier: You ask your leader.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am sure if I were the hon. member I would be concerned.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) has the floor and I would suggest he should get on with the debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I appreciate your advice and wisdom, Mr. Speaker. Your Honour is not only an excellent Speaker but have distinguished yourself in another profession in that connection by steering locomotives over very difficult terrain, and now you are making a tremendous name as a Speaker of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In the past few weeks there has been disclosure of questionable transactions by some of our Crown corporations, and there has been the report of the Auditor General. These are items of a very serious nature which reflect upon the capacity, integrity, and competence of the government. The allegations regarding our Crown corporations have affected our reputation financially and politically-and now commercially-in the international field.
It is very disturbing to note that parliament and the government have lost control of the public purse. Our financial management and control mechanisms are grossly inadequate, weak and ineffective. Those systems at present are significantly below acceptable standards of quality and effectiveness.
What we are really saying is that Canadians can no longer rely on the government to act as a worthy trustee of tax dollars, because its waste, extravagance, frauds, use of excessive office space, haphazard manner of administering operations, overstating its accounts and the assets of Canada, flout-
December 6, 1976

ing of laws and guidelines, and its manner of contravening the provisions of the Financial Administration Act are part and parcel of a performance which is a sad commentary on its actions. It is therefore ironic that at this time of our history we should be asked to pass a bill calling for government restraint.
Frankly, so far as I am concerned, before the government can expect the co-operation of the people of Canada on restraint, it must by clear example show that it itself means to exercise restraint. In other words it must show by example that it has control of the public purse and that it is ever watchfully and prudently spending the public funds of Canadians. It must practice what it preaches. Not only must mechanics of accounting devices be put in place; ministers and other representatives of the government must show that they too are practising restraint. Frankly, the government so far has not demonstrated willingness to restrain spending-nor have the ministers demonstrated it by their actions.
The Liberal government has deliberately foisted two myths on the people of Canada, myths I shall seek to expose this evening. One is that it alone can keep Canada together, that it alone has the leadership qualities and the inspiration to keep the country together as a viable, united unit.


J. Michael Forrestall: But the Liberal party has divided Canada.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The second myth is that it, and it alone, has the competence and capacity to govern. Well, the events of the past several weeks show that the Liberal party has failed on both counts. Although it went to the people of Canada in the past three elections saying that it could overcome regional economic disparities and foster national unity, the government has failed on both counts. The events in Quebec clearly manifest they have failed as well.
Let me deal with part of the second myth, namely, that the Liberal party alone has the competence to be the faithful and trustworthy custodian of the public funds of Canada. To see how false this claim is one need only look at the recent report of the Auditor General, for it shows that the government no longer has the competence to govern, and I doubt if it ever had such competence. Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General, with words carefully and selectively chosen, harshly criticized the way the government manages the financial affairs of the country. It was a stinging indictment, so stinging that no Canadian now thinks the government has the competence to run even a corner grocery store.


Mr. Nystrom:: Ralph Goodale thinks it has.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The hon. member may not have had the experience of being a grocery delivery boy. Some of us on my side had that experience.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Did the hon. member for York-ton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) have that experience?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If my friend opposite had been a grocery delivery boy he might be more competent than some of the people who now occupy the front benches opposite. I should
Restraint of Government Expenditures say that the Minister without Portfolio, who has been a successful entrepreneur, might be competent to manage some of the affairs of our country; after all, he has had business experience.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Hear, hear! He knows how to meet a payroll.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In conclusion one must ask this question. Why must this government bring forward an omnibus bill like C-19? If the government ever tries to do it again, such legislation will be dealt with sternly by hon. members of this House. I hope that the debate on the present bill, debate which has lasted for two or three weeks, will be a lesson to the government. This is not the First time it has imposed such nonsense on us. Next time the government feels disposed to include in one bill measures such as those affecting family allowances, grain stabilization, the CYC and Information Canada, the opposition parties will deal with the measure in a determined fashion. I say this to remind the government of what will happen if it should ever again attempt to ride roughshod over the wishes of parliament. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that as long as we sit on this side of the House, we will exercise our powers in a responsible way to serve the best interests of all Canadians.


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I note that since this bill was introduced on November 1, it has been considered on no less than 14 days and, according to my tabulation, so far 80 speakers have participated in the debate. On November 25 my colleague, the hon. member for Lamb-ton-Kent (Mr. Holmes) moved an amendment to defer second reading for six months. That might seem like an undue delay of the government's legislative program-if it had one.
I refer hon. members to the record of the present session of the Thirtieth Parliament of Canada. The number of bills introduced to date is 26; as far as I am aware only one, the act to provide for the resumption of port operations in Halifax, has passed all stages. A number of bills are presently under consideration, some of them in committee. But the government has no obvious plan, no legislative direction or goal toward which it is leading the country. As one columnist was moved to write recently:
This past summer, the government took three months to prepare its fall legislative program. What has it introduced? One major new item-a revised Immigration Act. Some budget bills left over from last June. Human rights legislation left over from the last session. An amendment to the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act. An amendment to the Canada Land Surveys Act. A bill to repeal the Satisfied Securities Act. A bill to eliminate double taxation between Canada and a few other countries. An amendment to the Historic Sites and Monuments Act.
What a list of housekeeping bills that is! But it certainly does not add up to a program which any government knowing the direction in which it was going would present to the House.
When I made an earlier contribution to the debate I referred to the restraint which could be exercised in the area of Crown corporations. There are some 43 Crown corporations listed in the table of contents of volume III of the Public

December 6, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures Accounts. I directed my remarks mainly to three of these, including Air Canada, which on a billion dollars of assets manages to come up with a loss of $3 million-not a big loss when compared with others in the operation of this country. Another I looked at was the CBC which on assets of $300 million manages to roll up a loss these days of over $300 million. I suppose there is even more opportunity in the area of the CNR, which on assets of $5 billion manages to turn a loss of $168 million.
I also mentioned the Post Office Department. This department has untold assets. We do not know how much they are and it is doubtful whether anyone does since all the real estate occupied by the Post Office is hidden away in the accounts of another department, the Department of Public Works. But the revenue of the Post Office amounted to $618 million and they managed to run a loss of 50 cents for every dollar they received for a total loss of $321 million.
I felt there was good potential for the government to get some restraint out of the corporations I mentioned. Since then, I have managed to look at more of these Crown corporations. It is difficult even to find out how many there are. The Auditor General has had an opportunity to say a few things about those corporations, too. As far as numbers are concerned, I referred a few moments ago to volume III of the Public Accounts of 1976 which lists 43 Crown corporations from Air Canada to Uranium Canada Limited. When I then turned to the Canada Year Book and found there were three different classes of these corporations, departmental corporations, agency corporations, and proprietary corporations, the matter became somewhat complicated. These institutions are specified in schedules B, C and D respectively of the Financial Administration Act. In any event, when I added them up in the Canada Year Book on government organization I only got 49, which is six more. The reason I said "only 49" is that when I went to the Auditor General's report I found that on pages 289 to 292 there are four tables of government-owned and controlled corporations and the total number there seems to be 73.
It is not surprising that the Public Accounts would not reflect all of them because one whole page of the appendix on page 292 of the Auditor General's Report lists 16 other corporations and not one of them is audited by the Auditor General. Furthermore, the footnote tells us that the financial statements of those corporations are not included in the Public Accounts and the notation is made: Reason not stated.
In addition to those 16 which are not included in the Public Accounts we find a further ten of various kinds which are not audited by the Auditor General, including some of the better known ones like Air Canada, CMHC, Petro-Canada and Polysar Limited. I shall not read them all but a fair number of them are also, for one reason or another, not included in the Public Accounts, even corporations like TELESAT and the Newfoundland and Labrador Development Corporation Limited. There are a further ten or so. Thus there are 26 which are not included in the Public Accounts, for what reason I cannot be certain.
Let me carry on briefly about what the Auditor General tells us-this is just a matter of numbers at the moment. Starting at page 303, the appendix to the reports on Crown corporations, he lists 23 Crown corporations with regard to which he made extensive recommendations, or perhaps one might call them criticisms. There is a footnote on that page indicating that the review of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Canada Salt Fish Corporation did not indicate any serious weakness. Presumably the remark is restricted to those two. The corollary is that the accounts of over 21 of the institutions listed on this page did reveal significant weaknesses, and I suggest this is the reason the next 140 pages of the Auditor General's report are taken up with observations and recommendations with regard to the faults and problems which were found in the accounts of those 21 Crown corporations.
We might easily ask ourselves why such a lot of fault-finding found its place in that report on these Crown corporations. I believe the Auditor General anticipated we might ask that question and I would refer now to the Conspectus of the report. On page two, the Auditor General reminds us that last year he had reported that-
The present state of the financial management and control systems of the departments and agencies of the Government of Canada is significantly below acceptable standards of quality and effectiveness.
We all hoped last year in the committee that the government would do something about these recommendations which had been made. But in his summary of the report this year the Auditor General notes that his study led to the following observations with regard to the Crown corporations which had been reviewed. I should like to read six of them here. This is on pages two and three of the Conspectus.
1.	No central government agency recognizes the need to identify all the corporations owned or controlled by the Government of Canada.
Is it any wonder that the numbers are different in all these publications? No central agency has been asked to undertake this task. Of course this is the basis of one of the prime recommendations which the Auditor General made.
2.	Commercial enterprises in the private sector are subject to a greater degree of financial accountability than Crown corporations.
We receive hundreds, if not thousands of complaints from businessmen who are trying to do business in Canada and contributing through their taxes to the well being of the country. How can the government ask these people to co-operate and carry on their businesses in a proper manner when the government's own businesses, which in some cases are competing with them, and using the taxpayers dollars to do so, are not subject to as stringent a degree of financial accountability as are corporations in the private sector?
Thirdly, the Auditor General says this:
Financial management and control is not a priority within Crown corporations.
It is often said, Mr. Speaker, that the private sector has profits to measure its efficiency but that government corporations have to rely on a different measure of their efficiency,

December 6, 1976

one measure of course being financial management and control. However, after great study the Auditor General has stated that financial management and control are not a priority item with this government. There can be no other method of measuring the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of government corporations than some such system as this.
The fourth item, if I may again quote the Auditor General, is this:
The annual deficits and net debt of the Government of Canada are substantially understated due to the manner of accounting for Crown corporations.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, if there are 22 of them that are not included in the public accounts-and probably they have made great losses as well-it is obvious to anyone reading the financial picture that he does not have the total financial picture and is not able to say what are the actual results of the operations of the Government of Canada. When we have a situation where the stewards of the assets of the country are unwilling or unable, one or the other, to give a report to the owners, then the time has come for us to make some very drastic changes.
The fifth point that the Auditor General makes is this:
Parliament is presented with incomplete and fragmented financial plans and inadequate financial reports.
In the four years I have been here 1 have been hearing about the inadequacy of our examination of the estimates, the inadequacy of committees, the inadequacy of information given to members of parliament duly elected by the people of Canada to oversee their affairs. If we cannot get the information from the government, then the people of Canada are in a much worse state than they think they are.
The sixth and final observation in the Auditor General's study is this:
Financing practices would preclude evaluating management performance even if central agencies had the responsibility to do so.
That is telling us a couple of very important things, Mr. Speaker. First of all it is telling us that the central agencies do not really have responsibility for evaluating management performance. Secondly, it is telling us that even if the central agencies did have responsibility for evaluating management performance, the practices that are employed would preclude any evaluation being made.
The conclusion the Auditor General comes to this year, after that condemnation in his 1975 report, is this, and I suggest it is a very important if not major conclusion:
In the majority of the Crown corporations audited by the Auditor General, financial management and control is weak and ineffective. Moreover, co-ordination and guidance by central government agencies of financial management and control practices in these Crown corporations are virtually non-existent.
The government has published book after book of estimates, votes, public accounts, statements by Crown corporations, annual reports and so on, yet the Auditor General concludes that financial management and control practices are virtually non-existent. I do not know how Canadians or the members of this parliament can expect to have the government achieve any kind of restraint when the government has no way of knowing
Restraint of Government Expenditures what amounts it is spending and whether it is even spending the money to the best advantage.
I should like to make a last reference to the Auditor General's latest report. He poses to us this question: what caused this alarming state of affairs to develop? And secondly: what can and should be done to rectify it? After all, Mr. Speaker, we have to know the answers to these questions when we try to account to our electors who sent us here to take care of their affairs. The Auditor General finds that he is not exactly able to pin down the cause of the state of affairs developing, and admits it is partly conjecture, but he goes on to say in reply to the second question:
However, it seems clear that the present unsatisfactory and vulnerable situation came about because certain key recommendations on financial management and control made by the Royal Commission on Government Organization (Glassco Commission) in 1962 were not implemented.
Again, Mr. Speaker, in the four years I have been here I have been trying to find out from the government when these recommendations, which were acceptable in principle and in large part in detail in the report of 1962, would be implemented, but I have not been given the answer. If the government is seriously concerned about restraint, it is time it gave us those answers.
The Auditor General goes on to state that there are other factors contributing to this situation and gives a few of them. The first is:
An attitude (tempered to some extent during periods of constraint such as at present) on the part of many managers at all levels that funds are readily available and that they themselves are not personally accountable for ensuring that public funds and assets placed at their disposal are under strict control at all times and that funds are expended prudently, economically, and with the utmost concern that good value is received for money spent.
If we do not have managers who are capable or willing to expend money prudently and economically and with concern for value received, then I suggest that any bill that the government puts before the House to encourage restraint on the part of government is a useless exercise, to say the least.
The second factor that appears to have contributed to the inadequate financial controls that now exist, says the Auditor General, is this:
A genuine and widespread lack of comprehension on the part of senior officials of government as to what effective management and control of public funds actually consists of.
So having said that managers are not doing their jobs, for whatever reason, Mr. Speaker, he now says that to a large extent the managers do not comprehend what it is that effective management and control consists of. If they do not know what they are supposed to be doing, Mr. Speaker, how can the government expect them to exercise any measure of restraint?
The third factor put forward by the Auditor General is this:
A lack of recognition by these same senior officials of the role a senior departmental financial officer could and should play in assisting them to administer with prudence, probity and economy the public funds for which they are accountable and thereby manage more effectively the organizations over which they have jurisdiction.
Having already said that managers do not have the right attitude, and then having said that they did not comprehend

December 6, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures
what it was they were supposed to do, the Auditor General now says that even if they did comprehend, they could not recognize what it was that the financial officers should be doing for them in order to make their job easier.
The fourth and last point is the unawareness among deputy heads of the characteristic of a qualified, competent and experienced senior financial officer and the contribution such a person could make as a member of the organization's top executive team, given properly defined responsibilities and adequate authority and resources. What that tells us is that there has been some restraint in the wrong areas. In other words, the managers do not have available to them qualified, competent and experienced senior financial officers who can take charge of the expenditures and accounting in the various Crown corporations.
I have dealt at some length with the Auditor General's report and Crown corporations. I think it is important because these Crown corporations tend to be brushed aside. Time after time when questions are asked in the House about them, the ministers are given to pass over the answers and say that Crown corporations have nothing to do with them, that they are independent bodies. Well, the government may find that a convenient answer to give in the House, but the taxpayer knows that it is his money that is being spent in those Crown corporations, so he wants value for it.
I think we could argue in another debate whether these 73, or whatever the number is, Crown corporations are necessary, or whether in fact many of them are necessary. I have made that point a number of times and I think it is obvious there are degrees of endeavour in which the government must be involved, such as national defence. There is also the other extreme-degrees of activity in which the government should certainly not be involved, such as hotels operated by the CNR. In between I suggest there are many questionable areas where the government, if it is serious about restraint, could relieve at lot of investment pressure on government budgets as well as reduce enormously the annual operating losses in those corporations.
I would like to make some other observations about some government programs, which the government considers so good, by referring to what was written about them in some newpapers recently. I will do so lest members opposite think I am making all this up, that it is an opinion singular unto myself. These items point to anything but an attitude of restraint on the part of the government.
The first is an article in the Globe and Mail which appeared within the last two weeks. It refers to the purchase and modification of a fishing vessel which was to be given or loaned to the Republic of Columbia by the Canadian government, to be used in a project for technical assistance in fisheries training methods. The government bought this ship for $175,000. Before it was finished, it had a total investment in that ship of $828,000. A month after that, in April of this year, Columbia refused to accept the ship because it was

unstable and unsuitable for the proposed operations. The government has not quite decided yet what alternative course of action to take to dispose of this ship for $828,000.
A little while before that, in April of 1974-and this is another matter which has not been resolved yet-the Department of the Environment acquired a leasehold interest in some property in the greater Vancouver area for the Pacific Environment Centre. The department paid $4 million to the previous tenant and then agreed to lease back about 20 per cent of it, 91/2 acres, for a renewable ten year term at an annual rental of $ 1 for the first ten years. The present worth of that lease is observed to be $702,000.
The next could be considered humorous had it not caused the loss of $13,000. Somebody in the Customs and Excise branch made a mistake. Instead of drawing a cheque for 370 Dutch florins, they requisitioned a cheque for 370,000 Dutch florins. When that was converted to a Bank of Canada draft, the cost of the draft was $157,000. We will have to give somebody credit because they did not mail out that draft for $157,000. Somebody found the error, but by the time it was found and they got the draft back into the bank, and made out a new draft for 370 Dutch florins, the exchange rate had turned unfavourable and they had to sustain a loss of $13,000 caused by the decline in that exchange rate.
It is not only in Crown corporations or even only in the accounting for government business that the government has problems which make its restraint program look somewhat foolish. Another program which I should like to draw to the attention of the House is the government housing program. We keep hearing from the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) and his predecessor-and perhaps even from several ministers in the past few years because we have had a number of housing ministers-about the housing shortage in Canada and how they will get the housing starts up to 250,000, and so on. There may have been a housing shortage a while ago and there are certainly people in Canada who have a hard time finding housing, but in no way can it be argued that there is a housing shortage in Canada today. It is easy to find all over Canada today in rental accommodation with vacancy rates of 20 per cent. How can there be a housing shortage if 20 per cent of apartments in certain areas are empty?
At the same time, in all but the government assisted programs where people are buying AHOP houses, for example in all but the lowest price single family units, there is a tremendous stock of unsold houses. These are not the very expensive houses but the ones in larger cities probably, although not always, in the price range of, say, $80,000. People these days just cannot afford to get into those houses. For the government to say that there is a housing shortage is to draw a red herring across the trail. It can be shown statistically that there is lots of housing available. It is not a housing problem but a money problem. The government might consider that it is more costly to be honest about it and put the money where the problem is, but in the meantime it keeps offering these programs and spending money at a time when it says it is trying to restrain spending. The government spends money on programs to
December 6, 1976

provide housing, which causes the private sector to be stuck with a huge inventory.
I have predicted this before and I will say again that I do not think we will go through this winter without some major financial failures-bankruptcies, if you want to call them that-in the private sector, because the private sector has been hampered at every turn by government at one level or another in its efforts to provide housing for Canadians. I suppose that a few examples will be in order because people will say, "What is the government doing, it is helping these builders?"
It did not help the housing situation when the federal government removed its incentive to rental housing in 1971. All that did was remove a lot of rental housing from the market, and it probably precipitated the tightest housing shortage for apartments that we had seen in the years right up to now in the larger centres. After all, interest rates are an effect of federal government policies, and the government seems to be unable to take any steps to make it easier for Canadians to buy houses in the way of getting them lower interest rates. Interest is probably the major cost in making up the housing component.
The federal government is not the only one responsible; provincial governments can take steps and have taken steps to make things difficult for the housing industry, such as putting land freezes around certain city areas, which automatically drive up prices and make it more difficult for Canadians to buy houses. Then, of course, civic governments also make it difficult and cause tremendous delays which result in higher costs by way of carrying charges and so forth for the land upon which housing can be built.
The federal government can get the restraint program on stream by cutting out some of the programs it thinks are important but which the industry does not. Then industry could be allowed to get down to work, and we would not have the situation we now have of Canadian builders and investors being forced to take their money to other countries which are more attractive from an investment point of view, and using Canadian money to provide housing for Americans or nationals of other countries.
Lest anyone thinks that the housing industry itself is crying for this government's aid, I would like to refer to a recent article in the Globe and Mail which arose out of an interview with industry leaders in the real estate field. They say that they are concerned about the business climate and the ways in which governments can and do intervene to the consternation of property owners at large. They are also worried that Canada might import programs from other countries, because they say the government seems to like importing ideas. They give this example:
In recent years, real estate people and real estate boards have had to deal with anti-development and anti-business municipal councils wanting to change the ground rules for the use of property, and seeming to disparage the very idea of private property ownership.
Restraint of Government Expenditures
They have seen provincial governments freezing development rights in the name of planning. They have seen rent control slow the market by making people who could afford to move ... too comfortable in their present quarters.
This is probably one of their strongest condemnations:
They have seen the federal Government copy U.S. authorities in applying anti-combines laws in the consumer field, requiring a four-year effort by the Canadian Real Estate Association to persuade Ottawa that the Multiple Listing Service is a real service and not a conspiracy.
That is four years of unproductive work on the part of an industry just to prove to this government that what it was doing was not so bad after all.
I see that my time is running out, and I would like to touch on just one or two other aspects of the government's restraint program.
I liked very much the observation of another editorial in the Globe and Mail about business, tax revenue, the intervention, shall we say, of the government into various fields of endeavour and so forth. The summary comment, if I could call it that, is this: "Wealth can't be redistributed until it has been created". We know that the government has a great interest in redistributing wealth. Many of the ministers have made statements that they are concerned about income redistribution, but if they do not let entrepreneurs in small businesses and big corporations-those people who produce wealth-get to work and stop interfering, there will not be any wealth to redistribute. Canada would not be the first country which would find itself in that position.
There is another huge area which is just beginning to bubble on the burners of concern in Canada, and that has to do with indexed pensions. Obviously I am not going to be able to get into that tonight, but I should say that the Canadian Institute of Actuaries has studied the situation in connection with the unfunded indexed pensions of the Government of Canada for civil servants and others, and they claim that more adequate and appropriate information on the cost of providing these pensions is needed in order to answer widespread concerns about financing the program. They refer to the Treasury Board report as follows:
... "the speciousness or the dubious validity of so many of the statements made and arguments advanced have aroused the suspicion or outright condemnation of practically every professional actuary who has examined the document."
They say that no attempt has been made to recognize the currently accruing cost, nor is there any requirement that the actuarial experience be subject to periodic actuarial review. There is a huge area for restraint that the government owes it to the Canadian taxpayer to have a look at.
Just before I sit down I would like to ask a question of the government. How can we have restraint of any kind under any kind of a proposal when we have no systems, no accountability, and no concern for the amount of money which is spent, and when we do not even know on what we are spending the money?


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, in previous weeks much has been said about the merits and the inadequacies of Bill C-19, and the debate has been lengthy. While I do not intend to reiterate the arguments our party has

Restraint of Government Expenditures
presented, I will make brief mention of clause 15. It is with pleasure that I learned that the government has decided to concede to opposition demands and withdraw-for the moment, anyway-this portion of the bill.
As my colleague, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), and others have pointed out, the major reasons for establishing the "at and east" rates in 1961 are still valid today. It is emphasized that these freight rates were designed to encourage the continued use of eastern ports to help keep Canadian flour companies competitive in world markets, to promote and assist development and expansion of Canada's grain industry, and to benefit the Canadian economy by providing mill, transportation, and port employment, as well as helping Canada's balance of trade position.
I might add that in 1976 the maintenance of these freight rates is most important. The western farm economy saw a bumper crop of wheat this year, and it is going to be an essential part of the government's plan to market this wheat. It seems to me that in this instance these freight rate subsidies will be very important in moving at least some of the western wheat through the eastern ports and through the flour mills which still exist in Canada. I can see this as a benefit to western farmers as well as eastern Canadians, and I think it is entirely a good move to remove this clause.
One thing which has struck many of us in reading and listening to the debate on this bill is the sharp contrast between the waste and inefficiencies revealed in the Auditor General's report and the government's paltry attempts to restrain spending, as outlined in Bill C-19. It is difficult for my constituents to understand the logic of reducing family allowance payments-they would have been increased if this bill had not come forward-when the Auditor General's report reveals gross mismanagement of public funds on the part of this government.
Perhaps the size of the bureaucracy is one of the factors which has led to the following situation. Instead of relying on its own marketing branch, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited paid $15 million to Eisenberg to sell CANDU reactors to South Korea. Not only does the sale raise serious moral questions in view of its implications for nuclear proliferation, but in carrying out the transaction the Auditor General claims that $8 million of the Canadian taxpayers' money was not adequately accounted for. AECL made a payment of $2.5 million to another agent in a deal to Argentina, a deal which will ultimately cost Canadian taxpayers as much as $100 million. AECL was criticized by the Auditor General for failing to report these pending losses.
It has cost Canadian taxpayers nearly $950,000 a year for a Vancouver property rented by the Department of the Environment which signed no lease and presently has no use for the property. The land was to be used for the Pacific Environment Centre but it is lying vacant due to budgetary restraints. In the same deal $4 million was paid to the previous tenant for 9.5

acres of land for which the government now admits it has no use.
A fishing vessel was outfitted for $828,000 and then it was found to be unseaworthy.
A shipment of $64,000 worth of potatoes was sent to Haiti in December and when they arrived it was discovered that frost and seawater had destroyed them.
I should like to comment on the government's appointment of a royal commission to study these problems. As the Auditor General revealed in his report, there is a great deal of mismanagement of funds, and he made various suggestions for solving some of the problems. Instead, the government has used the tactic of appointing a royal commission to study the situation and to report within a year or a year and a half. This is seen as a stalling tactic- perhaps the whole thing will die after a year and the public outcry will not be as great.
One of the main reasons I rose tonight was to speak on clause 14 of the bill, which provides for an amendment to the Western Grain Stabilization Act. If enacted this will mean that while farmers continue to pay into the fund at the rate of a 2 per cent levy, the federal government will be able to doctor the fund's account, writing in the amount to be paid but in fact withholding the actual payment until a later date when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) deems it advisable to make the outlay. Surely such accounting practices must be questioned.
I know a number of western farmers who are affected by the stabilization act and who are questioning this procedure. During the debate on that bill I remember that this party offered a number of suggestions on how to cut the costs of administration of the act and keep them to a minimum. It was suggested that the crop insurance staff could act as the inspectors rather than hiring a great many additional employees for Statistics Canada to go around and gather the information. It was also proposed that we have individual accounts rather than the aggregate account. This would assure each farmer of protection in his own situation during each year rather than having an aggregate payment when the total prairie economy was in a deficit position.
A recent edition of the Financial Post had an article which claimed that the price of wheat is dropping-in fact the price of all grains has dropped this year- and that costs are still rising, and that if we take a five-year average there may well be a payout in the coming year. The article claimed that a shift in production costs could aggravate the size of the payout, and that Statistics Canada estimates the 1976 costs are 10 per cent above 1975 levels. The writer blamed the opposition critics for not passing the original grain stabilization bill in 1971. He said that the five year average would then have been front loaded with low return years. Instead, the Liberal government can expect to have yet another albatross hanging from its neck when it goes to the polls in 1978, according to this article. I think the opposition can take that kind of criticism when we are getting extra income for prairie farmers. The suggestions we put forward were ignored in the
December 6, 1976

debate on the grain stabilization act and now we find the government trying to cut corners.
A recent study of what has happened to prairie grain prices and prairies farm incomes shows that the situation is not too good. The price of every farm product, other than rapeseed, has declined during the past year. The cattle industry has endured its second year of depressed prices the world over, and it is the same for hogs. Hog prices ranged from $68.22 a cwt. to $68.72 last year, and this year hogs are trading for $20 less, with prices averaging $47.35. Major grains have suffered the same fate. A comparison of cash prices with last year's prices shows that feed wheat No. 3 red spring traded for $2.76 a bushel, when last year it traded at $3.82; oats No. 2 Canadian western traded for $1.18 and last year it traded for $1.64 per bushel; barley is selling for $1.87 for No. 1 feed when last year's price was $2.36.
The only commodity I could find that has remained stable or gone up slightly is rapeseed. Yet this article claims that prices are going up, while economists in the Alberta department of agriculture anticipate a 5 per cent increase compared to 13 per cent a year ago and 18 per cent the year previous in the costs of production. As these costs rise and prices decrease, farmers will look to the act passed by parliament for help. With the worsening financial position of our farmers, stabilization payments may well be essential for their economic survival. This applies particularly to small farmers.
If the present amendment to the stabilization act is adopted, the government may be forced to scramble for funds in order to meet its commitments to farmers. I believe the farmers' levy is paid into the consolidated revenue fund. The government has stated that if it has to put up money which would normally be part of its revenue it will just write that amount off. The same is true of interest payments. If the government is called on to make such contributions under the stabilization plan, will it be able to keep its promises to farmers if it is suddenly confronted with large demands, the fund may be asked to pay out?
That concludes the comments I wish to make on this bill before it goes to committee. I think it is important to note that the government's planned withdrawal of the clause to do with the "at and east" rates represents a victory for the Conservative party.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the principle point of objection which I raised earlier and which other hon. members raised will be dealt with, if it has not already been dealt with; therefore I do not intend to take much of the time of the House in making my point. I have expressed it four times this spring and summer, together with the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). Others have joined us in speaking two or three times on the same theme in the present debate. This is my second contribution; I hope the House will forgive me for it.
Restraint of Government Expenditures
To me the issues involved were rather important; they affected the ports of Halifax and Saint John to a somewhat different degree than they affected most other ports of Canada. Allow me to make a general point to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang); I am sure he has heard from others what I am about to say and he will not be surprised by my comments; then, let me make two specific points in addition, and I will cease and desist.
My general point concerns the minister's argument as set forth, beginning on page 956 of Hansard of November 10. I think that philosophy is a good philosophy to apply. It is good to say that transport should bear its proper share of costs in Canada. I say it is a good philosophy if that approach is used all over Canada, that is to say, if it is used in connection with the Crownest Pass rates, the Welland Canal, the St. Lawrence River rates, as well as the special deal which Halifax and Saint John enjoy by virtue of section 272 of the Railway Act.
I think one could possibly expect the public of Canada in time to accept the argument that we must change our system with regard to transport costs, so that the person in Vancouver will not feel that he has been given a worse deal than, say, the person in Trois-Rivieres. To me it is as simple as that. While such changes might gore a lot of people, at least the Canadian people could stomach them, provided they apply across the board. But once you single out one part of Canada and make such changes in one part, you get yourself into the sort of difficulty the minister has encountered. I say that in order to make my general point.
May I now deal with the two specific points which the minister himself set forth in his speech, as indicated on page 957 of Hansard. If the matter were to continue without correction, I am sure I could speak for 40 minutes and ask for more time to finish these wise remarks in future; but I will not do it because I understand that the issue will be dealt with. Perhaps I should thank the hon. member for Vegreville, who joined me in making the initial comment on the matter. I thank the hon. members who have dealt with it more than once since it was raised initially. Having patted myself on the back and not heard resounding cheers from other parts of the House, I will simply have to let the record speak for itself. Let the record determine if we were able to accomplish what we set out to do.
Having said all this, I make the following two points sincerely to the minister. I have read his remarks about the milling industry with care. He talked about a $9 million a year subsidy to the milling industry; however, I understand that the subsidy to the industry was no more than $3 million a year. The people to whom I talked do not know where the figure $9 million came from; nor do I know its origin. Be that as it may, the milling industry would like the minister to initiate a long-range program, or at least they would like to see a few years ahead. Because the offending clause will be withdrawn in committee, I believe, there will be an opportunity either for the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) or the Minister of Transport to say what long-range help, if any, it is planned to give the milling industry. That is my first point.

December 6, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures
My second point concerns the unit train concept. Exactly what is the government planning in this regard? The minister considered that the unit train concept would partly answer our difficulties; he thinks that it will provide Saint John and Halifax with the answer which is not now available. I point out that the minister neglected to say originally that 30 per cent of the grain moves into those two ports by boat. Perhaps he lost sight of that fact. This matter should also be explored in committee before a new program is presented. I understand that the unit train concept was first raised several months ago, when the hon. member for Vegreville and I first raised it as a question. I notice that as a result of our speeches there were discussions involving the National Harbours Board, the Canadian Wheat Board, Canadian National Railways, as well as at least one department of the provincial government of Nova Scotia which was involved in those discussions. I will not belabour the point, since I do not wish to make a long speech.
Discussion of the unit train concept started back in April, or perhaps May. In the present debate the minister trotted out his most recent arguments concerning the unit train on November 10 when he made his speech in the House. What happened between April or May and November to the concept of the unit train? How much serious study was carried out in that regard? Were the road beds examined? Were the economics of the proposal examined? Did anyone consider that you would need at least one large elevator system either in Saskatchewan or Manitoba to feed the unit train? Although the people of Nova Scotia are not from Missouri, they at least would want to know more about this bold concept. I know that when I was raising this matter initially in the House, I was beaten down by the large headlines in the Chronicle Herald and Mail Star. When the unit train concept was first proposed I was lucky to find my comments reported a little bit above the obituary column. The fact is that political obituaries have now put an end to clause 15 of Bill C-19, which does not hurt me one single bit. But we have not seen any headlines in the Chronicle Herald and the Mail Star to the effect that the unit train concept is going on. If something could be said about getting one's head above the obituaries and getting one's head above the Minister of Transport, I think there could be possibilities in that glittering idea, but with all respect to the hon. gentleman he has to bring more facts and figures to the House.
I said I would be brief, Mr. Speaker, and I intend to keep that promise. I am pleased that somebody over there on that side has seen the wisdom of our fight against clause 15. A number of members opposite may not be very happy to know that it is to be withdrawn. But at least it is done. The people of Saint John and Halifax have to thank the members of parliament who carried on this fight and made this victory possible, and on their part, through you, Mr. Speaker, I thank those members now. I will also say a kind word for the ministry which succumbed to the inevitable, because if this had not been done it would have been either closure or Christmas. It would not have been both.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to speak on Bill C-19 and I certainly appreciate being able to offer a few remarks on the general question of restraint.
Speaking very generally, I think I should say first of all that the bill is wrongly named. The government calls it a restraint bill. If we look at its title, we find it says "An Act to Amend or Repeal Certain Statutes to Enable Restraint of Government Expenditures". Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the government does not need a bill in the form we have before us in order to bring about more restraint in its spending programs. It could have done that last year, two years ago, or five years ago. There can be no doubt that the government has been the most unrestrained, as far as spending is concerned, of any in our history.
Let us not forget, as we come to the conclusion of this debate on Bill C-19, that when the present administration was elected in the fiscal year 1968, the budget amounted in total to $9,927 million. Within six years it had succeeded in more than doubling expenditure at the federal level. To put the picture in another way, it took over one hundred years of confederation to reach a budget of somewhat under $10 billion, and within six further years government spending had brought the nation to the level of a budget of $20,473 million. Within the last three years the government doubled that figure again, so we now have a budget of $42,250 million. Yet the administration has the gall to expect credit for keeping expenditure at that level, one which I am pointing out is four times the spending level experienced in the fiscal year 1968.
In the last three years the government has caused federal spending to rise at the rate of 35 per cent per year. In the current year how often have we heard the claim that while spending last year rose by 18 per cent, this year it will only rise by 14 per cent? We have heard the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) say on several occasions that it is intended to keep federal spending in line with the growth of the gross national product. That is not the case. The government has already broken its own guidelines. Present indications are that the gross national product in this country will be up by approximately 11 per cent this year, yet the government on its own admission will increase its spending by 14 per cent, 3 per cent higher than the growth of the GNP. To their credit, the provinces have been more restrained. They have collectively kept their spending to the 11 per cent level, which is approximately the growth we shall experience in the current year. The reason I dwell on this is because I believe it is a misnomer for the government to be pretending that Bill C-19 is somehow its restraint program in action.
What is the effect of this tremendous increase in government spending at the federal level? I should like to refer hon. members, first of all, to the November 15, 1976, report on the Canadian economy, "Economy Outlook," put out by Oppen-heimer and Co. of New York. This report was written by Martin Pomp, and I would stress that contrary to what the government is trying to insinuate, namely, that the sell-off of our dollar was somehow the result of the popular verdict in the

December 6, 1976

Quebec election, this report was written on November 15, the very date of that election. This is what the report states:
Based on our analysis of U.S-Canadian relative inflation and costs, we believe the Canadian dollar is worth between U.S. $0.86 and $0.92, significantly below the current rate of $1.02. While our confidence in the timing is not great, we believe the Canadian dollar will slide from current levels in the current year.
That was written on November 15 and we now know that the dollar has declined by approximately 5 per cent in the last few weeks. But what I find most interesting is the analysis contained in this report-the reason why the Canadian dollar has been slipping. For example, we find this statement:
Our analysis shows that Canada faces some pressing problems that are not generally appreciated in this country: too rapidly rising government sector spending and large public sector deficits;
What could be more clear? Our affairs have been in the hands of a big spending government which has caused the country to live beyond its means, and we are now paying the penalty through a falling dollar in relation to the American dollar.
Let me read further from this summary which Oppenheimer and Co. put out.
Looking at the wholesale price index (all commodities) on the 1967 base- chosen because it was a year of equilibrium in U.S.-Canada trade-Canada's inflation through the second quarter of 1976 has been 7 per cent greater than that of the U.S., but the currency is now 11 per cent higher than the 1967 average; thus, the Canadian dollar can be said to be "worth" U.S. $0.87.
Again, what could be more clear? The government has brought about inflation which in turn has resulted in our dollar being worth about 15 per cent less than it was trading at a short while ago, according to this American analysis. I quote further:
Canadian unit labour costs (manufacturing) have risen in U.S. dollar terms 5 per cent more than have U.S. costs since 1967, so that an $0.88 exchange rate can be said to be appropriate on this measure of relative inflation. Canada's unit labour costs have risen 15 per cent more than U.S. unit costs since 1971, and are a harbinger of suppressed inflation within the current WPI and CPI figures under Canadian price and wage controls.
Then the second item in the Oppenheimer report is this:
-Canadian manufacturing is very much non-competitive; manufacturing unemployment has risen faster than that of the over-all economy, and manufacturing has declined from 23.0 per cent to 21.4 per cent of gross domestic product since 1971. Canada's share of world trade in manufactures has fallen by 22 per cent over the last eight years, and by 28 per cent if one excludes automotive exports-
The first point I want to make is that since this government took office in 1968 it has caused excessive federal government spending, and in no way is the government doing much more than mere window dressing in the introduction of Bill C-19, which is now before us. As you will recall, Mr. Speaker-my colleague from Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) has already referred to this this evening-when the Minister of Finance introduced his May 25 budget he stated he was going to try to keep spending within a limit of $42,250 million. At that time we stated there was at least $1,025 million which we could identify that could be reduced in the spending estimates if we had the opportunity to do so.
Restraint of Government Expenditures
Those savings included $125 million in the Post Office. I would certainly like to hear the new Postmaster General (Mr. Blais) tell us why he cannot save at least $125 million in the spending estimates of the Post Office. Secondly, we felt $250 million could have been saved through cutbacks in consulting contracts which the government has been so lavish in giving to many of its friends.


Marc Lalonde: To medical doctors mostly, for service in the north.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: We also felt that $150 million could be saved by stabilizing the civil service. Based on the Auditor General's recommendations of last year-I emphasize last year, not this year-we felt there could have been $50 million saved in administrative expenses. Amalgamation of departments, or phasing out of departmental operations which overlap with other federal departments or provincial counterparts, we felt could save another $50 million. And above all, Mr. Speaker, at least $400 million in the main estimates could have been eliminated from Crown corporations expenditures, bringing total yet realistic savings that the government could have made on behalf of the Canadian taxpayers to $1,025 million.
Do I have to remind hon. members, Mr. Speaker, that we felt this saving could have been divided in this way? Some $475 million could have been given by way of incentives to the economy, especially in the form of a personal income tax break in order to get the economy rolling.


Marc Lalonde: To befriend the rich.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The minister says to befriend the rich. How quickly he forgets what our proposal was. We said the government should give a tax credit to those earning $8,000 or less in the amount of $100 million.


Marc Lalonde: Tell us who your friends are.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: If the minister would just listen, we said the government should give a further tax credit to those earning between $8,000 and $16,000, amounting in total to another $150 million. If in the minister's book that means to the rich of Canada, then he shows how little he understands who the true rich are.


Steve Eugene Paproski: We know who your friends are, Marc.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Perhaps the next time the minister takes a ride on a certain jet he will know more accurately who in truth are the rich in this country.


Marc Lalonde: I did not declare bankruptcy.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In addition to giving those tax breaks to the hard pressed Canadian taxpayer, we also thought $75 million could be given in the form of incentives for research and development in the private sector. What a contrast, Mr. Speaker, to what we find in Bill C-19, which proposes to discontinue the very act that was set up to encourage research

December 6, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures and development in the industrial sector; I refer, of course, to clause 10 of the bill.
Again, we advocated that there should be $75 million given to help export sales by way of incentives, especially to try to get our small businessman more competitive in world markets. We felt that medical research deserved another $25 million, and I only wish that the Minister of National Health and Welfare, instead of worrying about his rich friends, would have gone along with an extra $25 million for medical research.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, we felt small business should be given an export incentive and also a fee for the filing of federal forms. Collectively those two items would have accounted for $50 million of the $1,025 million that we could see could be eliminated from the spending estimates of the government. The remaining $550 million we proposed to use to reduce the deficit which the financiers of this country-the international financiers judging from our plunging dollar-would very much welcome.
That is our position, Mr. Speaker. We believe it is a more meaningful position as far as restraint is concerned. Above all it is a more meaningful position in order to get the economy of Canada running into higher gear, to bring about greater prosperity, and to give Canadians the jobs they deserve but which are being denied them by this government.
Just on that point, Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to note an exchange that took place during "Question Period", not in this House but on CTV last Saturday. The air time was Sunday but the printed version I have was released on Saturday. Tony Westall was questioning the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) and was pointing out in a very effective way that the government has been totally inconsistent in that less than a year ago it was proposing to cancel various direct employment programs, such as Opportunities for Youth, a large part of the LIP program, and the Company of Young Canadians. Yet as Mr. Westall pointed out, just a year later the government was reinventing the very same programs. What did the Minister of Manpower and Immigration say in reply to that, Mr. Speaker? This is what he said:
Then to give you the other answer that I heard a judge give once, it would appear that it does not appear to appear to us now as it appears to have appeared to us then. It's been changed.
What an absolutely totally inept, indecisive government we have in Canada to make such a declaration!


Steve Eugene Paproski: On that note we will call it ten o'clock.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the Human Rights Act which was introduced on November 29 prohibits discrimination in employment areas under federal jurisdiction on a number of grounds, including sex, race and national or ethnic origin. The bill, by its inclusion of the concept of equal pay for work of equal value, sets a framework within which equality of economic opportunities for women and minority groups can be achieved. However, that achievement is going to depend on a number of factors, not the least of which is the quality of job evaluation.
The "Canadian Classification and Dictionary of Occupations" prepared by the Department of Manpower in conjunction with Statistics Canada, which is generally regarded as the basis for job evaluation in the public service, Crown corporations, and other federal agencies, is very much better in many respects than its American counterpart, the "Dictionary of Occupational Titles." However, it has rigidities and limitations, particularly in dealing with the service occupations which I find generally underrated, and since service occupations are mainly staffed by women and immigrants, this underrating needs correction if the intent of the Human Rights Act is to be met.
As I pointed out in my speech of October 19, the "Canadian Classification and Dictionary of Occupations" is a usefull work for industrial type skills which are, first, easily measured; second, historically regarded as wage related; third, can be observed directly on the shop floor; and, fourth, can be measured or quantified in some way.
Personal service occupations, on the other hand, involve qualitative factors, for example, empathy or ability to encourage a child's intellectual and emotional development. I have every sympathy for those who find it difficult to quantify quality. However, I do think it urgent that ways be found to improve on the present method of measurement. The CCDO, for example, makes a distinction between supervising and instructing, with the latter being regarded as a more skilled function. Thus, a foster mother is considered to supervise children, while a dog trainer is considered to instruct dogs.
An occupation which sounds strangely old fashioned now- CCDO was published in 1971-entitled, "Instructor, Charm Course" indicates higher requirements in general education, specific vocational preparation, greater skill in dealing with data and people in order to teach "groups of women" such
December 6, 1976

things as "shaking hands, entering and leaving automobiles and turning around", than are required for a foster mother who is entrusted with the care of a small child.
The low rating for foster mother and child care attendant probably reflects male bias, inexperience, or both, with a woman's caring, nurturing qualities being seen as either proof of woman's greater spirituality, on which one cannot set a price, or alternatively, as a simple instinctual matter for which, of course, neither intelligence, education nor training is needed.
But perhaps another bias is that education and training must always happen in a classroom and after the age of seven, and there is a total blindness to the way small children learn by experience and to the qualities of heart and mind that are needed to create an optimum learning situation in a home.
Another bias that one might see here perhaps is the bias in favour of formal education. For example, a nursery school teacher with a university education seems to be graded quite appropriately, but there is a tremendous difference, and I think an inappropriate one, between that teacher and a nursery school aide.
Finally, the other bias that I see in this is a bias in favour of a specialist against a generalist. There is perhaps no realization that it may take as much ability to be generally competent in a number of spheres as to be extremely competent in one narrow area. So, as I have said before, while the CCDO is a great improvement on its American counterpart, and the difficulties in improving the personal service occupation descriptions are considerable, nevertheless I think this is an absolutely essential prerequisite for any sensible and realistic administration of the Human Rights Act.


Mr. Arthur Portelance (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the updating of occupations in the Canadian Classification and Dictionary of Occupations will lead to a review of the service worker group for April 1, 1978.
The reassessment of every classification in each group is a routine matter within the context of such a review. When the reassessment of the service trade group does start, we certainly shall consider the possibility of taking the "foster parent" group from the residual group under which it is currently classified into a new group, together with other occupations involved with child care.
Another aspect of the updating procedure involves the analysis of functions in any new occupation, as well as in all those currently appearing in the CCDO. Any change will include a review of descriptive factors such as general education, specific occupational training, physical activities, environment conditions and worker functions. Inclusion of the DPT numerical system to describe an occupation is based on the assumption that each worker has to deal with data, people and things. The first aim of this system is to supply a standardized terminology to sum up what a worker does. As any other standardized system, this one must from time to time include cases that do
Adjournment Debate
not exactly fit into a system. We must also keep in mind that descriptions do not state what should be, but what seems to exist at the time the occupational analysis was performed.
General education and specific occupational training levels for occupations such as "foster parent" are very difficult to determine, although a minimum of formal and informal education and experience certainly are a prerequisite, as is shown by the CCDO. A high level in both cases is no criterion of success in such work.
Just as the Canadian labour scene changes, so do we attempt to keep the Canadian classification up to date. We shall pay special attention to such and other similar factors.


SEARCH AND RESCUE-REASON FOR DELAY IN RESCUING PASSENGERS FROM A DAMAGED TWIN OTTER IN THE ARCTIC
Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, further to my question on November 26 at page 1,420 of Hansard, and further to the question of November 29 at page 1,456 of Hansard by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski), may I say that transportation in the Arctic and northern parts of the provinces is mainly by wheel, float and ski-equipped aircraft. In other words, if you travel, you must travel by air. The majority of carriers operating in the north are capable and competent, but flying in the north, where there is a lack of proper weather information, is extremely hazardous. I would like to use as an example aircraft movements out of the Thompson airport over the last nine months. There was a low of 2,712 aircraft movements per month to a high of 5,844 aircraft movements. This was over a nine-month period.
On November 18 a Twin Otter aircraft crashed on a flight from Rankin Inlet to Repulse Bay. I must say that the ELT- or Emergency Location Transmitter-signal was picked up very quickly and that a para-rescue medical troop was dropped to assist. I compliment the rescue crew involved, but the concern I have is about the lack of rescue equipment in the Arctic and northern areas of the provinces. People who fly on northern routes pay premium rates and must pay the compulsory airport user tax. The people of the north ask for no more and deserve no less than a guarantee that the Department of National Defence will maintain adequate search and rescue capabilities in the north, and I would like to stress that the facilities which are now at Edmonton should remain intact.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The Canadian Airborne Regiment.


Cecil Morris Smith: That is the Canadian Airborne Regiment which is now in Edmonton.
I am not ready to accept the argument that arrangements could not have been made to rescue the survivors of the November 18 accident if rescue equipment available from northern carriers had been used. I would like to recommend that in future when search and rescues are involved, the member of parliament for the area concerned be kept up to date and receive a copy of the report. The parliamentary
1722

December 6, 1976
Adjournment Debate
secretary said he could have given me a report if I had asked for it.
It is no secret that I am very concerned about the north. If the parliamentary secretary or the minister had forwarded the report to me I would not have taken the time of the House on this very serious matter. I want to stress again the importance of aircraft being equipped with ELT, emergency location transmitters.
A report of the crash in a newspaper dated November 25 said that Calm Air, the company that owned the Twin Otter aircraft, had to go back to search and rescue and plead with them to go in to rescue the crew.
I want to stress again the importance of having search and rescue facilities in the north where people have no other means of transport than to fly. I think they deserve full protection, and this is not only for adults who fly. In many of the disasters where aircraft go down, women and children are on board.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member's question I should like to elaborate on a couple of the points he made. Had he directed the question to me on the day he asked it in the House I would have been able to give him up to date information.
With regard to the newspaper report, I do not know where they got their information but it is an absolute falsehood.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Here we go again.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: The hon.
member says here we go again-he is the expert on that these days.
ComAir is the company which owned the Twin Otter aircraft which went down. This was made known to the Armed Forces in Edmonton at 2135 hours on November 18. The aircraft was located approximately 100 miles to the west of Repulse Bay on Friday at 1700 hours. That is one day later, but not a full day later.
The Canadian Armed Forces were told at that time by an employee of whose capacity I am not sure, but at least it was an official of ComAir, that they themselves would be able to effect the rescue of the survivors and that the assistance of the Department of National Defence was not required at that time. Approximately 31 hours after the downed aircraft had been located by a Hercules, ComAir advised that they had not been able to locate the aircraft because of poor weather and the lack of suitable landing sites but that they were going to dispatch a ground party on snowmobiles at first light. Rescue and search assistance was requested at that time. Officials of the Department of National Defence decided on the action to be taken. The preliminary planning was done, and when it was finally determined that the ground party sent in by ComAir was unlikely to prove successful, the National Defence operations centre tasked a Chinook helicopter from Ottawa to effect

the rescue. Unfortunately the helicopter developed a malfunction and had to be brought down in North Bay.


Steve Eugene Paproski: It ended up in Petawawa.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: There is a difference between Petawawa and North Bay. Maybe the hon. member should take his seat and make a speech later.
Because of this malfunction and poor weather conditions the Chinook remained overnight in North Bay. In the meantime another Chinook helicopter from Edmonton was tasked to effect the rescue. It proceeded to the crash site and picked up the survivors and the para-rescue personnel who were dropped to look after the survivors at the request of ComAir. This was done on the morning of November 23, approximately one day after National Defence has been asked for assistance.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is difficult to allow more time for the hon. member as he has already gone beyond his allotted time.


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION- ALLEGATION OF INFLUENCE IN GRANTING MORTGAGE TO YORK PLACE OF HAMILTON
William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, this debate arises as a result of questions raised in the House on two previous occasions. The matter was raised once by my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), and it involves a question directed to the former minister of state for urban affairs about a mortgage transaction concerning a property owned by York Place of Hamilton Incorporated, Hamilton, Ontario. To the original question asked by the hon. member for St. John's East the minister replied in part, as reported at page 501 of Hansard for October 27, 1976:
If there are any irregularities, certainly I want to be the first to know about them, and I will check into this.
After my colleague had asked for a public inquiry, the minister said in part, as reported at page 501 of Hansard:
Certainly, I will look at the allegations made and make necessary inquiries. As I am sure my hon. friend realizes, we certainly look for any discrepancies or anything which is out of order .. .
Not having heard anything for three weeks, I raised the matter again with the present minister. I asked whether, in view of the former minister's comments, there was any further information available on any irregularities, and I asked the minister if he had any information to give the House. The minister implied, that I had asked a question concerning a matter which was before the courts and that I should direct my question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro). That was a different matter; but I subsequently asked the Minister of labour if he could tell the House what influence was exerted by his office which led to the decision of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in Hamilton to increase the mortgage to York Place of Hamilton Incorporated. It would have been simple if the minister had said that in that case no influence had been exerted by any member of the staff of his office, but
December 6, 1976

the minister did not follow that course. He made some testy remarks and wondered if I wanted to add to the insinuation which had been made. He said in part, as reported at page 1,129 of Hansard:
If the hon. member wishes to add to such insinuations I would be more than happy to have him stand outside; then perhaps I could add him as co-defendant.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), added this comment, "Let us see the guts now."
I have raised this question outside the House for a very good reason: there is nearly $8 million of taxpayers' money involved in this case. And, so far as we know at the moment, there is a lack of security and certainly a lack of revenue for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
The minister has not suggested to the House the reasons for twice increasing the original mortgage. Initially, in 1972, the mortgage for this property was approved in the amount of $5.7 million. Subsequently, in September, 1973, the mortgage was increased by $475,000. Late in 1974 it was further increased by $1,054,500. According to the affidavit filed by Central Mortgage and Housing in the courts in Hamilton, Ontario, there is now registered and under foreclosure a mortgage for the face figure of $7,229,500. Although less than $6 million has been advanced on this mortgage, according to the affidavit, the interest accrued to July 1, 1976 is more than $1.5 million. What this indicates, from a simple calculation, is that no interest had been paid on advances made between June 28, 1972 and July 27, 1975.
There are $350,000 worth of taxes owing to Hamilton for 1974, 1975 and 1976, and the affidavit states it would cost $550,000 to complete this project. So it is easy to see that CMHC, using taxpayers' dollars, will have $8 million and more invested in this place, and interest is accruing now at a monthly rate of $45,700.
The government can try to divert attention from the real issue by saying that the opposition is being mean to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) and making false accusa-
Adjournment Debate
tions. He does not deny those accusations so we cannot tell whether they are false or not. But the question remains, and the minister has not explained why the mortgage amounts were twice increased after the inital deal had been made between the developer and CMHC, nor has he explained whether there is any possibility that any influence was exerted on the officials of CMHC in Hamilton.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Hamilton office of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation approved a loan under section 15 of the National Housing Act to York Place of Hamilton Inc. in December 1971, in the amount of $5,700,000. This project consists of two tower structures, one of 25 storeys containing 240 units and the second of 20 storeys with 197 units.
During the construction of this project, the borrower encountered two work stoppages. The first of these was a nine-month strike by elevator installers, and the second stretched over a 12-month period during a threatened lien action by the heating and plumbing contractor.
Between December, 1971, and December, 1974, the loan was increased twice to reach a final total of $7.2 million. The increases were caused by higher construction costs arising from these work stoppages, from changes in plans, and from difficult soil conditions which required changes in the foundations. At no time was a decision of the Hamilton office of CMHC reversed.
Mortgage advances are made by CMHC on the basis of the value of work in place, and the amount estimated as necessary to complete a project. When construction resumed after the extended work stoppages, steps were taken to ensure that the mortgage advances were applied strictly to project-related accounts and commitments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.
80005-41i/2

Tuesday, December 7, 1976