1977-04-28

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity concerning Bill No. 1 now before the Quebec assembly, regarded by constitutional experts as being in part unconstitutional, and constituting a shocking denial of justice and fairness to some Canadians in that province in that it demotes them to second class citizenship. The philosophy and purpose of said bill dares to reduce the privileges with which their Canadian citizenship has endowed them, despite the fact that such privileges are clearly within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal parliament. Therefore, if it is accepted, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander):
That this House condemns unreservedly said Bill and in the event of its passage into law asks the government of Canada to give consideration to disallowing the unconstitutional sections thereof.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Paproski:: That is your Saskatchewan speech, Pierre.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


RESEARCH
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes), to move a motion under Standing Order 43. This is my motion:
That this House welcomes the visit yesterday and today of representatives of the scientific research community of Canada, expresses its approval of the funds being made available for research, and calls upon the government to strengthen the role of scientific research in this country by stabilizing its funding through the provision of a three year, annually updated budget commitment, coupled with long-term projections, so that Canadian scientists can multiply their accomplishments in both fundamental and applied research.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, on April 4 I proposed a motion under Standing Order 43 on the Quebec white paper on language which received general approval but not the required unanimous consent. With the introduction yesterday in Quebec of the bill, and now obviously a matter of urgent and pressing necessity affecting the lives and lifestyles of all Canadians, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Milne):
That the government consider a reference to a standing or special committee of the House of the subject matter in bill one, the charter of the French language in Quebec, presented in the assembly on April 27, 1977 by the Quebec provincial government, and that the committee be authorized to call witnesses to study the constitutional aspects and any possible contravention of the British North America Act, and to consider any conflict with the Official Languages Act and the Canadian Bill of Rights.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

Oral Questions


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
April 28, 1977

Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and seek the unanimous consent of the House to my motion. In view of the fact that the CBC has already, in the last ten days or so, been obliged to apologize and alter its procedures because of allowing improper and indelicate language in a live broadcast and because the CBC last evening between the hours of nine o'clock and ten o'clock, Victoria time, permitted the improper broadcasting of this same sort of language on a taped television program; I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House condemns the CBC for failing to have edited the program properly beforehand so as to ensure the deletion of the objectionable language, and requires the minister concerned, namely the Secretary of State, to take appropriate action with the official responsible for allowing this gross indelicacy to occur.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43 such a motion can be presented for debate only with the unanimous consent of the House.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Without debate, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: So far as I am aware no motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can be presented on condition that it be accepted without debate. Is there unanimous consent of the House for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. When the Quebec white paper on language was presented earlier this month, the Prime Minister told the House that he hoped the government of Quebec would qualify its intentions substantially and that he would await the legislation. Now that the legislation has arrived in the form of bill one, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he could tell the House what specific course of action he intends to take. Does he intend, for example, to test the constitutionality or certain provisions of the bill, or is it his view that events should be allowed to unfold in the province of Quebec?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the bill does have 177 articles. I have not studied them yet. The government has not reached a policy position on this important and complex bill. I am distressed to learn that the bill appears to differ from the white paper only in one respect, and in that sense it does not seem to be seeking the very desirable goal of promoting the French language in Quebec without at the same time impinging upon the historical rights of the English minority. In this sense I repeat what I said when the white paper came out, that I regret that that goal cannot be pursued without hurting anyone. However, as to any specific government action, I would want to read the bill and to study it further. In particular, the House will realize that this bill, hopefully, will be modified in committee and that there will be normal parliamentary procedures around this bill.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Just like here.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Just like here, Mr. Speaker. First reading does not necessarily indicate how the bill will come out in its final form, and I am hopeful that in the hearings before the committee the government will change its views on many important aspects.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I take it we can assume from what the Prime Minister has said that he will report to the House shortly after he has had an opportunity to examine the bill in some detail.
In view of the concern of the Prime Minister about the effects of certain provisions in the bill, which he considers to be unfortunate, I wonder whether between the presentation of the white paper and the presentation of the bill, in his capacity as Prime Minister of Canada, he communicated with the government of Quebec to express his concerns and to try to persuade the government of Quebec to preserve the aspirations of both French speaking and English speaking people in the province of Quebec.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my views were communicated to the responsible people in the province of Quebec. I have been on record for many years as being dedicated to two official languages rather than one. That is what we tried to entrench in the constitution in 1971, and I have had occasion many times to express to Quebec officials and ministers our views on that.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, to ensure that I do not misunderstand the Prime Minister, do I take it that there have been no specific communications between himself and the government of the province of Quebec since the presentation of the white paper? In view of the reference of the Prime Minister to his dedication to the Official Languages Act and the equality of languages in Canada, can the Prime Minister tell the House how he plans to meet the challenge this bill seems to present and which he seems to recognize it presents to the Official Languages Act? Can the Prime Minister indicate to us how he intends to meet this challenge?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not today, Mr. Speaker.
April 28, 1977


POSSIBILITY OF STUDY BY TELLIER UNIT OF IMPACT OF QUEBEC BILL PROVIDING FOR FRENCH LANGUAGE
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister say if the Tellier unit in the federal-provincial relations office is making or will be making a detailed analysis of the economic and cultural impact of this bill not only on the province of Quebec but, indeed, on the whole of Canada, and will such findings be reported to the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very constructive suggestion, and I will make sure that the Tellier group hears about it.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH COMMITTEE TO STUDY MATTERS AFFECTING UNITY
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister finds my suggestion so constructive, I will make a further suggestion. Given the very real necessity for parliament to be able to respond on an ongoing basis to the crisis in confederation, will the Prime Minister undertake to bring in a measure to establish a permanent standing committee on federal-provincial relations which will be empowered to monitor and oversee the activities of the federal government on matters of national unity as well as to examine and assess initiatives taken by the provinces in this regard and also to be mandated to travel across the country to hold hearings on modifications to our federal system?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on the first part of the hon. member's question, she probably knows that I wrote to the leaders of every opposition party inviting them, as leaders or through some of their members, to meet with the Tellier group.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I am talking about a standing committee.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I understand. 1 am referring to the early part of the hon. lady's question.
On the second part of the question, the suggestion of a standing committee is one which could very well be discussed between the House leaders. I certainly do not reject the idea. It might be a very good thing, although I am somewhat at odds with the terms of reference as spelled out by the hon. lady. I would think that it should not be a substitute for the various parties in this House taking a stand on these particular issues, as suggested I believe by the hon. member for Halifax. I would not want to set up a committee which would just travel around, without any determined mandate from the House of Commons. Perhaps the way to obtain that would be to seek a debate in this House of the whole problem, at a convenient time. I know our House leader is entertaining this idea and no
Oral Questions
doubt, if he has not already done so, he will be discussing that with opposition House leaders. We hope, Mr. Speaker, that if we take some government time to do this, perhaps the opposition will want to throw in one or two of its own days.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Seeing that this suggestion has been put forward on a number of occasions by members on this side of the House, would the Prime Minister undertake to have the House leader or the acting House leader give an indication later this day as to when that debate will be held?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. lady might want to show a little more patience.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the country has no patience.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The House leader is at present in Paris, co-chairing the very important meeting on international economic co-operation. 1 am sure the hon. lady will admit that the Third World has been showing some patience too in the solution of its varying problems, and this has some priority.


SUGGESTED CONSULTATION WITH QUEBEC TO RESTORE ENGLISH LANGUAGE RIGHTS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I understand the care with which he is responding to the complex bill one of the Quebec legislature. Considering that the over-all purposes and indeed details of bill one, being the preservation and enhancement of the French language and culture in Quebec, are ones with which Canadians everywhere can agree, I ask the Prime Minister if he would consider arranging a meeting soon with the prime minister of Quebec, to get him to restore in this legislation the traditional right of English speaking Canadians who move to Quebec to educate their children in the English language?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe I dealt with that in my answer to the first two questions asked by the hon. member for Halifax.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. 1 listened with care to the Prime Minister and may not have understood completely his answer. I would appreciate his repeating the point. As I understood his answer, he did not indicate that he would or would not favour the course of action which I just suggested. He said, I think, that he had not yet decided on the course of action his government would take. What I wish to ask him most seriously is if he would consider, on such an important matter, not going the route of a legal decision before the Supreme Court of Canada but, rather, going directly to the prime minister of Quebec, recognizing the traditional concern of that government with minority rights, and speaking to him directly about those important minority rights traditionally enjoyed by English speaking Canadians?
5062

April 28, 1977
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is asking me to consider that, of course I can say that I will consider it. I believe that I answered the hon. member for Halifax by saying that I had not had any recent meetings with the premier of Quebec on this subject, and that in so far as future action is concerned, including that contemplated by the hon. member, 1 had nothing further to say on the point today. 1 hope that very soon the government, will be able to explain its position on this complex piece of legislation.
I would want to disabuse the hon. member, however, from any great hope he may entertain that a meeting between the premier of Quebec and myself might suddenly make him a convert to our concept of the Official Languages Act-namely that there are two officials languages in Canada. It seems to me that the hon. member must know that this is contrary to the very roots of the position of the government of Quebec and the hon. member is holding forth a very shallow hope if he thinks that I will change that very basic position of the present government of Quebec by having a meeting, no matter how persuasive I might be, Mr. Speaker.


John Edward Broadbent: Considering that the Prime Minister did not hesitate to speak directly with the former prime minister of the province of Quebec concerning the then bill 22, does he not think that at this particular period in our history all avenues of diplomacy ought to be seriously pursued in resolving complex, touchy and important matters such as fundamental liberties?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the question is rather rhetorical. Of course it is a very complex and important subject. I am just explaining to the hon. member that the present premier of Quebec does not have the same views of Canada as the previous premier of Quebec. There is also this difference, that the previous premier did indeed discuss publicly and privately the orientation of bill 22. I said publicly and privately that I disagreed with the concept of one official language of Quebec, that I thought it was a step in the wrong direction, that one could promote the excellency and development of the French language and indeed ensure the progress of an essentially Francophone society in Quebec without deterring from the rights of the minorities. This was our position under bill 22. A fortiori it is true under the present language charter of the present government. I said that publicly. I said it many, many times. I am just warning the hon. member that if I do take this trip to Quebec at his suggestion, I doubt very much whether he should hold his breath that I will obtain the results for which he and I are hoping.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[ Translation]


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: 
NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It is related to the most important issue of the government of the north. In view of the fact that over the past year native organizations and communities in the Northwest Territories have become increasingly critical of the role of the Territorial government in promoting the education and de-' velopment of native peoples, and in light of the latest dispute over a department of local government workshop which has resulted not only in the suspension of the entire training program and the resignation of an entire government division but also in the further alienation of native communities from the territorial government, will the minister indicate if he supports the view that the Commissioner recently stated that the territorial government will no longer be involved in programs relating to the development of the political awareness of native peoples, a view that contradicts the government's own clearly stated policy objectives in this area?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that the Commissioner for the Northwest Territories made that statement. If it is alleged that he did, I will check into it to make sure. At this point, I am not aware of that statement.


John Robert Holmes: A further supplementary given the fact that the territorial government has clearly demonstrated its unwillingness to assist with the kind of training native people want, will the minister accept the suggestion of the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada and the Eskimo community of the north, principally
April 28, 1977

from the Eastern Arctic, that responsibility for the political education of native peoples be turned over to native organisations with appropriate government funding to enable the task to be undertaken? Further, when will the minister respond to telegrams from the ITC seeking clarification of government policies in this area?


William Warren Allmand: To begin with, I wish to make it clear that the civil servants involved were territorial civil servants, not civil servants of the federal government.


Some hon. Members:: No difference!


William Warren Allmand: All the incidents which took place in connection with this matter took place within the jurisdiction of the territorial government. So far as I know the program for local government will continue. Since we have set up two territorial governments to run such things as local governments I am not too sure whether it would be proper for me to intervene as minister at this state, but I am reviewing this matter now.


NORTHWEST TERRITORIES-PROPOSED INQUIRY INTO ISSUE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
John Robert Holmes: In the light of the minister's final comment, may I ask him whether he will initiate a full-scale inquiry into the whole issue of local government in the area, bearing in mind the seriousness of this problem, and report to the House at an early date?


William Warren Allmand: I do not think it is necessary to launch a full inquiry at this time. However, I have been getting reports on this issue and assessing the situation to determine what jurisdiction I would have as minister with respect to this local government matter.


STATEMENT BY COMMISSIONER OF NORTHWEST TERRITORIES ON RIGHT OF NATIVES TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT-MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Perhaps I might direct a question to the minister with reference to a 14-page memorandum issued by the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories from which I should like to quote the following statements:
This administration does not believe that aboriginal people or any other racial or ethnic group in Canada should have the right to form their own political jurisdiction.
Does the minister support this statement, one which clearly indicates that the political future of the Northwest Territories would be based not upon the special needs of the native majority in the north but, rather, solely on the basis of institutions and regulations imported from the south and unsuitable for northern conditions? The statement I have quoted was obviously made by the Commissioner of the Territories or by a federal civil servant.
Oral Questions


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I have said on several occasions that we support the self-determination of the native peoples of Canada.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and it relates to the budget introduced by the government a month ago the expressed purpose of which was to stimulate business and investor confidence. Since each of these aspects is measured by stock market levels, and since these levels have been falling steadily since the budget was introduced, is it not clear, now, and does the Prime Minister not agree that the budget has failed in its objective and that the government should go back to square one and produce a budget which will be of use, rather than of no use, in stimulating business conditions in the country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Two points arise there, Mr. Speaker. The budget will, of course, take some time before having its full effect. The second point is this: we have just concluded a budget debate. It was supported overwhelmingly in parliament-1 believe there were very few members on the other side who indicated their opposition. We do not plan to have another budget debate in the near future.


George Harris Hees: The budget was, of course, supported only by the sycophants of the Liberal Party who know perfectly well they are bound to support whatever the government brings in or their chances of advancement are nil. Is the Prime Minister's answer not in keeping with his philosophy, which is this: if a report flatters what he is doing he believes it or agrees with it; otherwise, it is simply a lie.


TRANSPORT
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to put to the Minister of Transport. Perhaps he does not like me so I will ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ask him-I think that is the proper way of doing it.
Will the hon. gentleman inform the House of the nature of the talks he has had with the principals of the CAST Steamship Line recently, particularly with respect to its president, Mr. Frank Yarby. Can he tell us, also, the role which he, as Minister of Transport, intends to play in the resolution of this controversy, particularly in the light of the conditions under which CAST is prepared to return to the Port of Montreal?
80012-42V2

April 28, 1977
Oral Questions


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: 1 took part in a discussion with regard to the position which CAST takes in the dispute and explored a few avenues of attempted solution. I shall, no doubt, be seeing other parties involved in the dispute as well in an attempt to resolve the issues.


J. Michael Forrestall: What we are talking about, of course, is 25 per cent or 30 per cent of the total container traffic being carried between Europe and Canada. Also involved is a tremendous amount of the container movement out of the United States middle west. Might the minister now give an assurance to the port communities of this country that he will not permit his office to be used in any way with respect to these negotiations which would result in an undue advantage to one Canadian port over another?


Otto Emil Lang: It has been our constant position that we must try to work for the benefit and best operation of all ports and, clearly, not to give any undue advantage to one over another in attempting to resolve this dispute. There are none of those elements in it.


J. Michael Forrestall: I appreciate very much the response the minister has given to that question. Would he inform the House whether he intends to permit his office to be used with respect to mediation in connection with this situation involving the Maritime Port Employers Association of Montreal?


Otto Emil Lang: There is some inevitable involvement on the part of my office in connection with a matter as important as this, and to that extent I have to take an interest in it. But I would certainly not use the expression that my office is being "used".

[ Translation]


AIRPORTS
Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
Could the minister tell the House when the commission of inquiry into bilingual air traffic services in Quebec is to submit its report on the use of French for VFR at Mirabel, Dorval and St. Hubert airports and could he also indicate whether he intends to order the implementation of the commission recommendations as soon as he receives its report?


Otto Emil Lang: I do not know when to expect the report on the language to be used in the air in connection with Mirabel and St. Hubert in particular. I look forward to that, of course, but I simply do not know the date at this point.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, the other questions I wanted to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development have already been asked. I should like to tell the minister that I support the suggestion that an investigation should be undertaken of the incidents which led to the cancellation of the workshop on self-government and such matters at Baker Lake a few weeks ago. Would the minister define the government's position on self-determination for the native peoples of the Northwest Territories?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, when we said that we believe in the self-determination of the native peoples of Canada, we meant they had the right to run their own affairs within Canada in accordance with our institutions and our constitution. We are presently developing policies with the native peoples and the government of the territories to move toward a more responsible government, and we hope to publish that policy in due course.


Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, as I believe the hon. Minister's department is actually the real government, so to speak, of the Northwest Territories, what assurance can the minister give this House that the government really is committed to promoting self-determination for the aboriginal people of the Northwest Territories, and would he let the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories know what that is all about?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, that is the first time 1 have heard it stated that the government of Canada was the real government of the Northwest Territories, which seems to imply that the government of the Northwest Territories does not have certain jurisdiction under statute. As a matter of fact, there are certain members on the other side who have suggested that we make the territories into provinces and that we move more in that direction. If they look at the statutes for the Northwest Territories, they will see that some things come under the jurisdiction of the territorial government and are run by the Commissioner with the executive committee. As I stated earlier, I am examining the situation to see what jurisdiction I have as minister with respect to the incident that took place. If I do have jurisdiction, I will act on it.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. There are persistent reports that the United States navy are considering
April 28, 1977

halting their procurement of Lockheed P3C long-range patrol aircraft. Many of the offset benefits of the billion dollar LRPA Aurora contract were predicated upon Canadian firms supplying components for the projected 150 United States navy planes.
Has the minister discussed this matter with Lockheed recently to determine if Lockheed will be able to fulfil the industrial benefits promised in the contract, if the United States navy does not go on with the 150 P3Cs?
[ Translation]


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I think the question should be directed to my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, we had the direction of the Prime Minister a year ago that the Minister of Supply and Services was going to look after the contract for the LRPA. I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, but he seems to have disappeared from his seat again. Perhaps the Prime Minister would be willing to answer my supplementary question on behalf of the minister. Has the Prime Minister, or has any of the cabinet read Lockheed's annual statement which indicated to their shareholders that, if the United States congressional committee persisted in disclosing additional names of those receiving undercover payments from Lockheed, it might adversely affect their contracts with other countries? Is the Prime Minister aware of this situation? Has anyone in the cabinet discussed it with Lockheed? Can the Prime Minister give the House any reassurance that Canada is still whistle-clean in the matter? Can the Prime Minister give any reassurance that the existing LRPA contract will run unimpeded, and in the main unchanged, through the plane delivery dates?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we have no intention of releasing the relations of Lockheed with other countries or the attitude the United States Congress might have toward Lockheed. We do know, when the possibility of an illegal contract by the Lockheed Corporation was studied by a congressional committee, that we did obtain the assurances that there was no involvement of any Canadian in any way in any illegal act.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is for the Prime Minister. If it was the intention of the Canadian government to find out if any Canadians were involved, could he explain why they signed an agreement that they would not divulge any names, even on the part of the United States or on the part of cabinet, if they became aware of them?
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of trying to obtain names in the United States would be if they had any evidence in their files which might implicate Canadians we would ensure that our security force, the RCMP, would follow up on that investigation and see, indeed, if there was any illegality.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications. Is the minister aware of the fact that the trustees of shares owned by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the Newfoundland Broadcasting Company, Mr. Alan Waters of CHUM Radio in Toronto and Mr. A. C. Lloyd Hudson of St. John's, have filed an application on behalf of the trust to take over the six AM radio stations owned by NBC in Newfoundland on the basis of exchange of shares owned by the minister that would be transferred to Mr. Stirling in return for the assets of the AM radio network so that the radio network would become the property of the Secretary of State under a new licence if the CRTC approves? Is the minister ascertaining all the facts to determine whether the approval of such an application and the carrying out of such a proposal would violate the views of or the regulations of the government of Canada with respect to conflict of interest situations involving cabinet ministers?


Hon. Jeanne Sauv6 (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the CRTC gathers together all of the information that is necessary when looking into an application for buying or operating radio or television stations. The Minister of Communications does not gather this type of information because the CRTC is the only body with the authority to look into these kinds of applications.


GOVERNMENT VIEW OF PROPOSED TAKEOVER OF RADIO
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister. My question does not relate just to the CRTC. Does the Prime Minister or the government consider it proper for a minister of the government, using the device of a so-called blind trust to become the outright owner of an extensive radio network under licences granted by a government agency, particularly in view of the fact that such applications cannot be successfully completed without the approval of government regulatory authorities whose members are appointed by the government and responsible to the government for the performance of their duties? What is the government's view on this?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we published and made public the guidelines concerning con-

April 28, 1977
Oral Questions
Diets of interest in the case of ministers. If the hon. member has some information that these guidelines might have been infringed, I would be happy to have the details of such.


POLYSAR
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is in relation to the Polysar controver-sary and it is directed to the Prime Minister or the Acting Minister of Finance. On Tuesday last the Minister of Finance indicated that he had asked for a report and was then awaiting a report in respect of certain press reports allegedly identifying customer "M" in the Aylesworth report and presumably identifying some of the other customers in that report. Can the Prime Minister tell me if the government has received that report. If so, what is in it and how do we learn what is in that report?
Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance will be back in the House shortly and will be in a position to answer that question then.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That is a great contribution!


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary was to be to the Solicitor General. He is not here, therefore I will direct my question to the Acting Solicitor General or to the Prime Minister. Has the RCMP yet been directed to cause an investigation into the whole Polysar matter; and in particular two aspects, namely, did any of that money get back to Canada; and second, did the Polysar subsidiaries, which are Crown corporations and are now controlled by the government, in any way aid or abet such criminal acts as the fraud on minority shareholders in Europe? Has the RCMP been directed to cause an investigation in this matter? If so, when? If not, why not?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General-


Mr. Art Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of the question.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That puts you down, Pierre.


George Harris Hees: He did not trust you, Pierre.


PROPOSED UPGRADING FACILITY FOR HEAVY OIL AT LLOYDMINSTER-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON FEASIBILITY REPORT
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Having regard to the importance he places upon the development of heavy crude and the fact that the development of our heavy crude resources could go a long way in meeting the domestic energy requirements, and inasmuch as a group of 20 companies have put together a proposal for the construction of a 100,000 barrel-a-day upgrading facility to be located in the Lloydminster area, and given the fact that the viability of such a project will not be met unless there is modification in existing tax and royalty arrangements, could I ask the minister if he and his officials have had the opportunity to study the initial feasibility report on this development? If so, would the minister indicate to the House what is the nature of the government's reply?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, there are two projects underway at the present time. The first project which was introduced to the province of Alberta, was the fiscal regime respecting a new 125,000 barrels a day tar sands plant. Officials of the task force have been meeting on that and have recently brought that project to the point where it should be placed before ministers very shortly.
As to the second question, the very important area of heavy oils and the upgrading of those heavy oils in the Lloydminster area, that project is not as far advanced in fiscal terms as the first one I have just mentioned. But I think it is further advanced in terms of the consortium of companies that are interested in pursuing a project, either in Alberta or Saskatchewan, or perhaps separate projects of similar size on both sides of the provincial boundary.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since time is of the essence and it is the intention of the companies to bring such a facility on stream by 1980, and given the fact that they will need clarification on the modification of the many tax policies and royalty arrangements by the end of the first quarter of 1977, is the minister in a position to tell the House when he will undertake to give an answer as to whether the government will be amenable to changes in the tax and royalty structure as outlined in the feasibility study? Can the minister give us an indication when he will be prepared to make this announcement?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am not in control of such events. The hon. member already knows from my earlier answer that this is a question of negotiation and discussion between the federal government and the province of Alberta on the one hand, and the federal government and the province of Saskatchewan on the other, with respect to the heavy oil deposits. I can assure the hon. member that we are pressing
April 28, 1977

the two provincial governments and the officials on the project team or the task force itself to bring this matter before us at the earliest possible date, because I recognize, as he does, the enormous importance of those resources.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. In view of the press announcement the other day by the CRTC concerning those who had sent in specific allegations about bias or balance in CBC programming, and in view of the fact there was no mention whatever whether any cabinet ministers had made specific allegations of bias or balance in CBC programs, can the minister tell the House whether in fact any ministers did make specific allegations of bias or balance about CBC programming in Canada?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, those letters are not sent to me but to the chairman of the CRTC. Therefore, I am in no position to tell the hon. member whether any cabinet ministers have sent any complaint to the chairman of the CRTC, which of course they are free to do if they so desire.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which I will address to the Prime Minister. In view of the answer of the minister, I wonder whether the Prime Minister would talk to his colleague to see whether she would either phone the CRTC, Mr. Boyle, or perhaps even get together with his own ministers to see if they had made specific complaints of bias or balance in CBC programming, and if they have not whether they intend to do so, or does the Prime Minister think at this point in time, unless there are specific allegations, that the whole idea of an inquiry into the CBC should be reviewed and perhaps revoked? Because after all, he did get his speech in Winnipeg.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister responsible for manpower having to do with some 18,000 senior citizens who have been deprived of unemployment insurance benefits as a result of a foul-up in the previous act. Is the minister now in a position to indicate that a bill will be introduced tomorrow so that the same can be given speedy passage in order that these
Oral Questions
needy people can acquire the benefits to which the minister has indicated they are entitled?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: No, Mr. Speaker. I still have to stand by my position taken on Bill C-27 until I am able to clear up some procedural, legal and technical problems. I am having to determine which is the cart and which is the horse in this situation. Approaches have been made, as the hon. member knows, in regard to a bill going through the House, and it would seem that we could get approval if the bill says what the hon. member hopes it will say. So I am having some difficulty in that area and I want to discuss the matter with the House leader, who is on some other important business today.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister has been apprised of this matter for months now and it is inexcusable that he has not been able to arrive at a solution as yet. As I understand it, the House leaders have been in discussion on this matter. I was led to believe that the bill would be introduced this week, that a solution had been found. Would the minister look into the matter much more thoroughly than he has in the past in order to see to it that in the early part of next week a bill is introduced? After all, you have been shafting the senior citizens-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


HOUSING
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. It deals with the income tax provisions which allow a taxpayer to deduct capital cost allowance from personal income. This provision is due to lapse on December 31, 1977. Since the budget was mute on the subject, would the minister indicate whether he has recommended or will be recommending to the Minister of Finance the continuation of this program beyond December 31, as his predecessor did in regard to the first termination date of this program?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is premature to make a decision to this effect. As soon as a decision is made, I shall be pleased to make it known in accordance with the usual procedure.


Harvie Andre: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since there are lengthy lead times in the development business between planning and construction of new rental accommodation because of the fact that municipal and provincial governments need to know the federal government's intentions in this

April 28, 1977
Oral Questions
regard, would the minister commit himself to making a statement on motions in the very near future, hopefully within the next month, so that those who have to build rental accommodation for the people of Canada will know what the ground rules are?


André Ouellet: People are familiar with the rules of the game. The program is being implemented and all those who want to benefit from it are free to do so.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Whereas the development and maintenance of a viable transportation system in the maritimes has been viewed by DREE as an important economic development tool, and whereas the railway transport committee of the Canadian Transport Commission is conducting hearings in the maritimes during the months of May and June, 1 would like to know from the minister if he is planning to have representatives from his department attend the hearings as observers and if his department is planning to submit to any of the hearings scheduled.


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman that my officials in New Brunswick will follow the meetings very closely and will probably attend. If they do not plan to attend I will make sure that someone from my department does attend. As for submitting a brief at the hearings, I do not think so because I have the opportunity to make my views and those of my department known, as well as those of my colleague, the Minister of Transport. But I will follow the matter through thoroughly.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday marked the beginning of conversations between the five power delegation, which includes Canada, and the prime minister of South Africa regarding the future of Southwest Africa. As this is probably the most significant intervention by Canada in southern African affairs since the dispatch of the expeditionary force to the Boer war, could the Prime Minister indicate how
[Mr. Andre.)
the talks are going and, more particularly what commitments Canada has undertaken in the event that the proposals being presented are accepted by Prime Minister Vorster?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. Could I ask the deputy House leader or the parliamentary secretary, or whoever is in charge of the House today on the government side, the plan for the House for the balance of the day, and what the government's intentions are for tomorrow and as far into next week as whoever is in charge can possibly look?


An hon. Member:: We will take notice of the question.


Mr. Goodale:: To continue with the good will and the real productivity which was apparent in the House yesterday, I can indicate to my hon. friend that we will begin this afternoon with third reading stage of the Bank Act, Bill C-39. We will then move on to the legislation relating to the James Bay agreement, Bill C-9, in the hope of completing the report stage of that bill, and then to Bill C-48 relating to the small loans legislation. When we have concluded these items, our intention is to move to Bill C-23 relating to metric conversion and Bill C-41 dealing with the maritime code. I wonder if my friend would care to inquire further about suggestions relating to allotted days next week?


Walter David Baker: That was my next question, Mr. Speaker. There have been some discussions. In fact, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition submitted to the government a suggested list of allotted days, the first of which was Tuesday, May 3. The parliamentary secretary may be able to go further with that list, but could he at least suggest the allotment of that day?
While he is answering, will he bring to the attention of the government House leader the exchange which occurred during the question period today involving the proposal for a standing committee on federal-provincial relations so that the matter can be brought specifically to his attention to be discussed at the earliest possible date?


Ralph Goodale: With respect to allotted days, I can certainly confirm the intention to designate Tuesday, May 3, as an allotted day. In the absence of the government House leader, I do not think I would want to go further down that list at this stage. With respect to the question raised during the question period respecting a standing committee, I will personally draw that matter to the attention of the government House leader and ask him to give it his attention early next week.
April 28, 1977


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for the list he has given us. I hope we can stick with it a little better than we have thus far this week. But I rise mainly to ask the parliamentary secretary to press upon the appropriate ministers the point raised a moment ago by the hon. member for Hamilton West. My understanding is that all House leaders have agreed to the introduction of a bill to permit the payment of unemployment insurance to certain persons over 65 years of age. We all agreed to it and were told a bill would come, on the understanding it would pass all stages without debate. We have agreed to that. What is the delay?


Ralph Goodale: With respect to the final matter raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I understand there are some technical difficulties with the approach, although 1 am optimistic that this matter will be resolved. 1 shall endeavour during the rest of the day or perhaps tomorrow to be more specific with the hon. gentleman.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, although perhaps Your Honour may be inclined to call it a grievance. It is a point of order in that it points out what 1 consider to be a very serious deficiency in our rules with respect to the examination of estimates. I refer specifically to Standing Order 58(14) under which all estimates are deemed to have been reported back to the House as of midnight, May 31. Because of limitations of space, and because we have difficulty manning committees, House committees now operate under what is known as a block system. Consequently, committees have to plan their schedules in such way as to ensure that there is adequate time to examine estimates as well as legislation.
The committee that is charged with the responsibility of examining the estimates of the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs is the omnibus committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. In addition to examining the estimates of the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs, it is also charged with examination of estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and a number of commissions and agencies, including the National Capital Commission, the Medical Research Council of Canada, and so on.
My point of order is the following: While Standing Order 58(14) states that the estimates are deemed to have been reported back to the House by midnight, May 31, there is nothing there that states that estimates have to be examined by a committee. So all a minister has to do is to hold fast with one excuse after another if, in fact, he does not want to have the estimates of his department examined by the committee.
I believe that such a situation is developing with respect to the estimates of the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs, and specifically the estimates of the Crown corporation for which the minister answers, which is CMHC. That independent Crown corporation spends over $600 million a year. It is a very important Crown corporation. Indeed, it is just about the total responsibility of the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs.
Business of the House
Yesterday, notwithstanding the fact that a meeting today had been scheduled for the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs to examine the estimates of the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs, the chairman of the committee was called to cancel the examination of the ministry because the minister was not able to attend. The chairman had to comply, and a notice went out cancelling today's meeting.
My understanding is that Crown corporations, by tradition and practice of the House, appear before committees without the benefit of the minister who answers for them being present. In other words, committees should be able to proceed, whether or not the Minister of State for Urban Affairs is present, with an examination of the estimates of CMHC. Our problem is that we have evidence before us which we have ventilated in the House. We have gone as far as we can go with it in the House. Indeed, we have an admission from the minister that the whole procedure of the administration of that part of the National Housing Act will be tightened up. We had an admission from him that the National Housing Act has been used improperly in terms of funding by way of guaranteed loan hotels. There is no provision in the act anywhere, especially in that section of the act which is being invoked for this reason, namely, section 6(1), to give authority to CMHC or the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs, or anybody else, to provide guaranteed loans for hotels. We know there are two hotels which the minister has admitted were funded in this way. One of them is the subject of bankruptcy proceedings. That is how the whole thing came out. Twelve such hotels have been so funded in Canada since 1973. That happens to coincide with the time Mr. William Teron became the president of CMHC. In addition to holding down that position, he is now undersecretary of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, or the deputy minister.
For the balance of this month, the schedule of meetings of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs is such that there will be only two occasions on which the committee will have an opportunity to examine the $600 million worth of estimates of CMHC. The committee is scheduled to meet tomorrow morning, and because of the meeting being pre-empted by the question period at 11 a.m. we will have only an hour and a half, or less, tomorrow morning. The next meeting is scheduled for May 5, which means that we will have two meetings, or a total of approximately six hours, to examine the $600 million estimates of CMHC, the National Capital Commission and all the other responsibilities of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
I can almost anticipate what Your Honour is going to say. There is reference on the order paper to reactivating the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, but in my opinion there is, if not a question of privilege, a very serious grievance here in that hon. members of this House are being deprived of their right and, indeed, their responsibility properly to examine estimates prior to voting on the supply bill. According to the Standing Orders, the supply bill will

April 28, 1977
Business of the House
culminate at the end of May, when we will be faced with an appropriations bill for some $45 billion.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I, too, wish to make a comment on the same point of order. This matter has been a source of frustration to members of the committee who have for some time been concerned about developments with regard to the improper use of a section of the National Housing Act, namely, section 6(1) under which loans are made to middle-class and high-class hotels throughout the country. At the last meeting a commitment was made to provide the committee with information, including the names of all the hotels which were involved, so we could concentrate on this issue, particularly in light of the failure of the government to produce an urban housing policy and, for the last four years, to live up to a commitment it made with respect to a rural and native housing program.
The frustration was not only that we could not confront the minister and his department in committee, but the minister has a very definite responsibility in the province of Quebec right now, and he has not been in the House either. Because of the failure of the government to live up to its commitment and to implement some of the other parts of the program, we need to know under what jurisdiction these loans were made and how much they have cost the Canadian taxpayer.
The thing which really offends me-and my colleague touched on it-is that yesterday we were informed that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs will not permit the chairman of the board of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the deputy minister of urban affairs, to appear on his own before the committee. I can sympathize with the minister, particularly in light of press reports with respect to the conduct and the character of this senior public official, namely, William Teron. That conduct was challenged in the court and the court ruled against the government, so 1 can understand that the minister would be nervous about allowing this senior official to appear before the committee on his own. If I were the minister I, too, would be afraid of what this man might say and the other problems he might get us into.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's East has raised, by way of a point of order, a rather serious matter. I do not want to have that weakened by getting into a discussion as to whether an official of a Crown corporation ought to appear before a parliamentary committee on his own. That matter is much more difficult and much more tenuous than the main problem, which is whether hon. members of the House have an opportunity before a standing committee, within the time prescribed, to examine the minister. After all, under our system it is the minister who remains responsible for all his responsibilities, not officials of the Crown corporations involved. Therefore, I do not think we should mix the two points of order.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss one final point which means very much to me. We were led to believe that Crown corporations have a certain autonomy within their departments. Other Crown corporations answer certain policy

questions which relate to their official duties, and 1 think it would be a strange departure from accepted procedure if we could no longer examine senior officials of this Crown corporation in committee without the minister being there. That would mean that Crown corporations would no longer appear before committees. Whether that is a grievance, a point of order, or a question of privilege, I feel that the Chair should give us some guidance on it.


Mr. Whiteway:: Mr. Speaker, my location in the House, in the back row which is on the opposition side of the House, is not unrelated to this matter. 1 am in the opposition, I am a backbencher, and I have little opportunity to do the job I was elected to do. I have said in this chamber before, in general terms, that it is the right of the government to govern, to bring in legislation and to give economic direction and direction in terms of foreign policy to the country. However, it is equally my responsibility, and my right as a member of parliament- even though I sit here on the backbenches-to scrutinize the activities of the government, and to do that I must have adequate time in standing committees. What we have experienced in the committee has been postponement and cancellation. If it was merely postponement, that would be one thing. I do not mind losing the battle, but I do object when 1 do not have an opportunity to fight.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dean Waldon Whiteway: This is not only a farce; it is an abrogation of my right as a member of parliament to scrutinize government spending. In that committee we have to deal with $623 million to CMHC, $17 million to Urban Affairs, and an additional $62 million to the NCC. Only one committee meeting has been scheduled-at which I will have, at the most, ten minutes and, if I am lucky, a minute during the final wrap-up.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Sir, that is not good enough. I do not raise this matter simply as one of rhetoric in the House of Commons, but as a matter of vital concern to me. I am in earnest. I will not equivocate. I will not retreat one inch. I shall be heard, because I was elected by the people of Selkirk to have that opportunity. I shall fight every inch of the way any cancellation which denies me the right to scrutinize government legislation and expenditures in the committee because my rights are at stake.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: In connection with the very interesting point of order raised by the hon. member for St. John's East, hon. members will be aware that one of the constant grievances of the past has been the fact that the House, under any system, has had to come to a point where in order to allow for orderly planning of federal governmental affairs it had to vote a supply of money to the government. That moment has arrived in the past and has been troubled by the appearance of members of the House of Commons receiving at the very last
April 28, 1977

minute, on the last allotted day, a supply bill upon which they have been asked to vote. Even the appearance of voting that amount of money in a short time is a little unsavoury.
The explanation and the understanding for that is that the decisions really are not made at the last moment, although the bill cannot be produced for the scrutiny of all hon. members until that time. In fact, the amounts are known and the make up and every page, line and comma of those bills can be predicted in advance because of the system under which the estimates are referred to the standing committees; and hon. members are given the opportunity to examine and question ministers on those spending estimates. Therefore, it is justified that hon. members are asked to vote supply on the last day, because they have had that opportunity, in the interval, to give thorough examination to the spending estimates.
In fact, we have been able to use that system since the beginning of this parliament in order to progress a little and, I am happy to say, to release the supply bill earlier in the day so that we are all given the opportunity to absorb its contents a little in advance. That takes away the strain of being presented with the bill only moments before the vote.
The functioning of the entire system is predicated on the theory that opposition members indeed, members on all sides of the House are given a proper and adequate opportunity in the intervening period between the introduction of the estimates and the introduction of the supply bill to examine ministers on their spending estimates in the standing committees. Indeed, the point of the hon. member for Selkirk is well taken in that respect. One recognizes that a meeting may have to be postponed for the convenience of important witnesses who are to appear. After all, every member of this House works under a heavy schedule. Such postponements can be understood.
While the point raised may not at the moment constitute a question of privilege or point of order, the Chair can surely not do otherwise than look on the matter most seriously as striking at the fundamental roots of the right of every member to function properly. Any step which might be viewed by the public as jeopardizing the full and complete right of any member to examine a minister upon his spending estimates before a committee must be viewed seriously.
Therefore, within the limits of good will and co-operation it is expected that as a fundamental part of the entire system any minister owes it to the House and to the country to extend his utmost co-operation in facilitating committee meetings, in appearing there and in making sure that all officials necessary for the proper examination of the estimates appear with him.
The whole argument in past years for this system of the examination of spending estimates is that certain advantages exist in standing committees which do not exist in committee of the whole. That is to say, in standing committees several sets of officials may accompany the minister, and if questions on peripheral issues have to be raised at the time itis not necessary to go to another committee meeting: questions may
Report of Clerk of Petitions
be put to, and answers obtained from the minister or his officials, or the minister may answer through his officials, which may be the proper parliamentary function. Certainly, the presence of officials who can advise and counsel the minister is an important part of the exercise.
I do not question the right of any minister to say that his responsibilities ought to be borne by himself, but I do say, again-to make the point clear, if it is not clear already-that the point raised does not constitute, in its present form, a point of order or a question of privilege, because any cancellation or postponement may not have been of such an extent as to exhibit any ill will or attempt, however unwitting or accidental, to frustrate the system. If that has not existed up to the present time, then perhaps these remarks are simply nothing more than an admonition or description of what in the opinion of the Chair is expected of a minister in these circumstances.
To make the point perfectly clear, it seems to me to be fundamental to the entire system that a minister shall be expected to be seen to extend to the House the utmost co-operation and assistance in facilitating the most meaningful examination of his spending estimates in the standing committees in every way possible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Transport and Communications-Mr. Campbell.

[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration-Miss Nicholson.

[Stage Direction]
EIGHTH REPORT OF CLERK OF PETITIONS RESPECTING PETITION PRESENTED BY MR. MacKAY
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table the eighth report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.

April 28, 1977
Order Paper Questions QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I am sure hon. members will be pleased to know that the following questions will be answered today: 496, 984,	1,233,	1,458,	1,533,	1,790,1,851, 1,874,	1,905,	1,927,	1,942,	1,953,	1,966,	1,967,	1,968,1,969, 1,970,	1,971,	1,972,	1,981,	1,994,	2,002,	2,003,	2,004,2,005, 2,007,	2,014,	2,043,	2,046,	2,049,	2,062,	2,089,	2,145,
2,150, 2,161,2,178, 2,182 and 2,205.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Does CBC intend to construct a three thousand watt F.M. French language transmitter at/or near Brockville, Ontario and, if so (a) on what date will construction commence (b) what approximate date will broadcasting commence (c) what is the estimated radius that the broadcast signal will carry?
2.	Does CBC possess data, or has it or anyone acting on its behalf furnished surveyed figures showing that of the listening area (a) 92% is mother tongue English (b) 6% is mother tongue other than English and French who speak English as their daily language (c) 2% is mother tongue French who speak mostly English as their daily language?
3.	What are the reasons justifying the establishment of a French radio station at taxpayers expense in a predominently English speaking area and will the government not proceed with this project in view of its announcement in the Throne Speech that certain bilingual costs would be reduced?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Department of the Secretary of State: 1 and 2. To be answered elsewhere.
3.	First part: To be answered elsewhere. Second part: In this respect, the establishment of French-language broadcasting facilities, although it compliments the government's bilingual programs, responds directly to the legal responsibilities of the CBC set out in the Broadcasting Act, and to the extension of broadcast facilities as outlined in the Accelerated Coverage Plan of the CBC, and sanctioned by parliament. The Accelerated Coverage Plan, for which parliament has voted funds, is not a bilingual program in the sense intended in the throne speech.
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation: 1. Yes. (a) Construction is expected to begin in the spring of 1977. (b) Target on-air date is the fall of 1977. (c) 45 miles.
2.	(a), (b), (c) Yes.
3.	First part: The Broadcasting Act requires the CBC to extend the national services to all parts of Canada, in English and French, as public funds become available. The CBC's Accelerated Coverage Plan calls for radio and television service to all areas across the country with a population of 500 or more not now served in the appropriate official language. According to Census Canada 1971 there are 1,300 people in the coverage area of the proposed station who have French as their mother tongue, plus 1,500 bilingual people, making a total of 2,800 who can speak French. Second part: To be answered elsewhere.


Mr. Orlikow: How many man-days of work were lost in 1975 as a result of strikes, industrial accidents, illness or unemployment?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Time lost directly as a result of strikes and lockouts in 1975 totalled 10,894,190 man-days. Of this total, 1,148,760 man-days were lost in the federal jurisdiction and 9,745,430 man-days in provincial jurisdictions. Time lost as a result of employment injuries (excluding industrial fatalities) in 1975 is estimated at 11,594,000 man-days. Of this total, 299,480 man-days were lost in the federal jurisdiction and 11,294,520 man-days in the provincial jurisdictions.
Note: Information on man-days of work lost in 1975 as a result of illness or unemployment is not available from sources in this department.


Mr. Jones: 1.	Does the government have objections against the establishment of Cancer Control Centres such as those in Mexico where a product called Laetrile is used and, if so, what are they?
2.	What procedures would have to be followed to obtain approval to establish such a Cancer Control Centre in Canada?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. The government of Canada does not object to the establishment of Cancer Control Centres. There are many Cancer Control Centres or clinics in Canada; however, the use of Laetrile is not permitted in Canada. Since 1963, scientists of the Department of National Health and Welfare have examined and evaluated periodically all the available information and material on Laetrile supplied by the manufacturer or obtained from other sources. As a result of these repeated examinations, the department has concluded that it cannot permit Laetrile to be distributed in Canada and that it shares the position on this drug taken by two of the most important medical bodies in fighting cancer in Canada. The National Cancer Institute of Canada has expressed extreme concern about the publicity purporting to show therapeutic value for Laetrile, on the basis that this drug is of no proven value. Therefore, the institute considers that promotion of this drug may constitute a cruel fraud at least, and even be harmful by delaying or preventing access to treatment of known value. An identical position has been taken by the Canadian Medical Association. (See the News Release issued by the Department of National Health and Welfare on May 20, 1975.)
2.	The use of Laetrile in cancer control centres in Canada would require the submission of acceptable evidence of the efficiency and safety of this agent. No drug manufacturer has ever filed a satisfactory submission providing acceptable evidence of the efficacy and safety of Laetrile, which would be required in order to permit the marketing of this drug in Canada.

April 28, 1977

1975-82; May 20, 1975; Departmental Position on Alleged Cancer Drug: Ottawa-National Health and Welfare Minister, Marc Lalonde, today made public the position of his department on a so-called cancer remedy known under the name Laetrile. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation rebroadcast a special program on its English television network, on Sunday, May 18, 1975, where this drug was presented as a useful weapon against cancer. Mr. Lalonde said that taking into account all known facts, the Health Protection Branch cannot permit Laetrile to be distributed in Canada and that it shares the position on this drug taken by two important medical bodies involved in fighting cancer in Canada. The National Cancer Institute of Canada has evinced extreme concern about publicity purporting to show therapeutic value for Laetrile, on the basis that this drug is of no proven clinical value. Therefore, the Institute considers that the promotion of this drug may constitute a cruel fraud at least, and even be harmful by delaying or preventing access to treatment of known value. An identical position has been taken recently by the Canadian Medical Association. Laetrile-or amygdaline- is a substance obtained from defatted apricot kernels by extraction and recrystallization. It has been stated by its proponents that the drug reacts with an enzyme in excess in cancer tissue, producing hydrogen cyanide to which cancer cells are sensitive. No drug manufacturer has ever filed a satisfactory submission to market this drug in Canada. In March 1964, in order to stop an illegal Canadian distribution of Laetrile, the then Food and Drug Directorate seized all available supplies. The directorate's action was upheld by Superior Court in Quebec, which said that it would be far more dangerous to suspend a law intended to safeguard the health of the general public than to deprive certain patients from acquiring a drug of dubious value that had not been tested for safety and effectiveness. The 1964 situation still exists and the drug is still considered of dubious value. Preliminary studies conducted on animals at the Sloan Kettering Institute, a well-known cancer institute in the United States, have shown that there was some slight suggestion of benefit in tumour-bearing animals. The scientists who conducted these studies do not believe, however, that the animal data are sufficiently promising to indicate the value of a clinical trial with Laetrile. In 1966, following a careful review of the literature and investigations by the Cancer Commission of the California Medical Association and this department, the American Cancer Society stated it had found no evidence that treatment with Laetrile results in any objective benefit in the treatment of cancer in human beings. No information to the contrary has become available since then. It seems that most if not all of the clinical evidence presented for Laetrile is based on the uncontrolled subjective impressions of only a few physicians. There has been testimonial information claiming cases of improvement in some patients, but their long-term health status, whether any effects could validly be attributed to Laetrile, or how many patients given Laetrile subsequently died, are not known. Mr. Lalonde emphasized that he and his officials are as anxious as cancer patients and their families to see the marketing of an effective cancer drug, but that he does
Order Paper Questions
not believe marketing of a remedy should be permitted without sound scientific evidence as to its safety and effectiveness. Mr. Lalonde also regretted that despite representation from his department, the Canadian Medical Association and the National Cancer Institute, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation chose to rebroadcast a program which could raise false hopes about the value of Laetrile in the treatment of cancer.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	How many (a) shirts (b) ties, similar to the ones worn by employees during the Olympics, were purchased by CBC during (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?
2.	Were similar items purchased by CBC for use by its employees during the same years and, if so, what were they and how many were purchased in each case?
3.	What was the (a) unit (b) total cost of each type of item purchased?
4.	To whom are such items issued?
5.	Are such items free to employees and, if not, what is the price at which each item is sold?
6.	How many of each item does CBC currently have in stock?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. (a) Printed, (i) Nil; (ii) 7,326; Blue, (i) Nil; (ii) 441; (b) (i) Nil; (ii) 305.
2.	See reply to 1 above.
3.	(a) Shirts: Printed, $9.89; Blue, $10.89. Ties: $6.00. (b) Shirts: Printed, $72,454.14; Blue, $4,802.49. Ties: $1,830.00.
4.	To all Olympics personnel under control of the CBC as host broadcaster, as well as to personnel involved in CBC domestic coverage. This included technicians, producers, supervisory staff, some private broadcasters and technical suppliers involved in day-to-day coverage activities. Depending on the nature of the assignment and with what other types of clothing they were worn, two or three shirts were issued to many personnel. The special clothing served two purposes: to identify readily the host organization, and to facilitate access to venues and restricted areas.
5.	The shirts and ties were issued free to Olympics personnel. The printed shirts are now available at cost to all CBC personnel.
6.	Printed shirts: 143 women's, 460 men's. No ties or blue shirts remain in stock.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the Department of Public Works obtained (a) part-time (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and, if not, from what estimates are they paid?
3.	By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies (b) average hourly rate paid to employees (c) total amount paid by the Department in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?

April 28, 1977
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: 1. The services of the employees of private employment agencies have been obtained during 1976/77 (to December 31, 1976). The number of employees is reported in man-years with one man-year being the equivalent of 2,000 man-hours:
Province in which
Agency is located	(a) Part-Time (b) Full-Time
(i)	British Columbia	28.4	-(ii)	Alberta	1.5	(iii)	Saskatchewan	.1	(iv)	Manitoba	.1	(v)	Ontario	41.5	2.9(vi)	Quebec	9.4	2.7(vii)	New Brunswick	-	(viii)	Nova Scotia	.5	(ix)	Prince Edward Island	-	(x)	Newfoundland	2.	No; the cost of these services were paid from the departments appropriations included in 1976/77 Main Estimates.3.	(a) and (c) The average hourly rate paid by the Department of Public Works to these employment agencies and the total amount paid, by province for (i) 1975/76 and (ii) 1976/77 (to December 31, 1976) is as follows: (a) Average Hourly Rate Paid to Employment Agencies; (c) Total Amount Paid by the Department.Province	1975/76	1976/77 to Dec. 31/76	1975/76	1976/77 to Dec. 31/76$	$	S	$British	Columbia	6.84	8.50	6,990	482.560Alberta	5.72	6.29	30,437	18,691Saskatchewan	4.64	5.46	3,497	1,665Manitoba	4.71	5.48	7,382	900Ontario	6.01	7.55	752,285	671,051Quebec	5.28	6.24	149,445	1 50,950New Brunswick	-	-	-Nova Scotia	5.05	5.30	1,095	5,552Prince Edward Island	Newfoundland	-	-	-
(b) Payment is made by the department to the agencies for the services of their employees, therefore we are unable to provide this information.
Note: For purposes of this reply "private employment agencies" have been defined as those agencies whose major function is the provision of manpower and not the provision of services. The personnel supplied by these agencies are employees of the agency and not of the department.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,000, have any statistics been compiled to indicate the percentage and distribution of payroll fringe benefits in the manufacturing and non-manufacturing industries and, if so, what are they for the latest period recorded?
2.	Does the government monitor the payroll fringe benefit statistics which are compiled in the USA for the purpose of comparison of unit productivity costs of our two countries?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: STC replies that: 1. Yes. The accompanying table contains statistics on the composition of total employee compensation, including "fringe benefits", for the manufacturing and non-manufacturing industries. The last reference period recorded is shown for each industry. Statistics for non-manufacturing industries as a whole have not been produced. The first regular survey of all industry divisions, covering the year 1976, is now in progress.
2. Yes. When constructing indexes of labour productivity and unit labour cost for Canada, a comparison is made of the performance of the corresponding indexes for the United States. The comparison is made for both manufacturing and for all commercial industries. The comparison is possible only for total labour cost, and not for fringe benefits exclusively.
Table 1: Estimaled Labour Costs as Percentages of Gross Payroll, 1970-1975, Canada
Item	Manufacturing 1971	Transportation communication and other utilities 1970	Finance insurance and real estate 1970Direct payments to employees: Pay for time worked: Basic pay for regular work	84.3	84.2	88.3Overtime (straight-time pay)	3.2	3.0	0.8Premium pay: Overtime and holiday work	1.5	1.4	0.3Shift work	0.6	0.4	0.1Other pay	0.2	0.2	0.1Total pay for time worked	89.8	89.2	89.6
Education, libraries
Mines,		and museums	
quarries	1974	Services toand oil	Teaching/ Non-teaching/	businesswells	T rade	academic non-academic	management1972	1972(,)	staff*2* Staff	197580.7	86.5	99. |0>	85.3	83.13.2	1.6	0.8	2.11.6	0.6	0.4	0.80.5	0.1	0.1	0.13.l<5>	0.1	0.1	0.1	1,9<4>89.1	88.8	99.2	86.7	88.0

April 28, 1977

Order Paper Questions
Table I: Estimated Labour Costs as Percentages of Gross Payroll, 1970-1975, Canada
						Education, libraries		
Transportation	Finance	Mines,	and	museums	communication	insurance	quarries	1974	Services toManufacturing	and other	and real	and oil	Teaching/	Non-teaching/	businessutilities	estate	wells	Trade	academic	non-academic	managementItem	1971	1970	1970	1972	1972<>>	staff*2'	Staff	1975Paid absence:	Paid holidays	3.4	3.3	3.3	3.0	3.2	4.4	3.4Vacation pay	5.1	5.3	4.5	5.6	4.3	5.5	4.6Sick leave pay	0.4	1.1	0.9	0.4	0.7	1.7	0.8Personal or other pay	0.1	0.2	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.4	0.1Total paid absence Miscellaneous direct	8.9	9.9	8.8	9.0	8.2	12.0	8.9payments: Bonuses-Christmas, etc.	0.5	0.1	0.7	0.5	1.7	0.0	0.1	2.0Termination pay	0.2	0.2	0.6	0.2	0.2	0.1	0.1	0.2Taxable benefits	0.6	0.4	0.3	1.1	1.0	0.5	0.7	0.9Other payments	0.1	0.1	0.2	0.1	0.2	0.4	0.1Total miscellaneous direct payments	1.3	0.9	1.6	1.9	2.9	0.8	1.3	3.1Total (gross payroll)	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0Employer contributions to	employee welfare and benefit plans:	Workmen's compensation	1.0	0.7	0.0	2.2	0.6	0.1	0.2	0.5Unemployment insurance Canada or Quebec pension	0.8	0.6	0.7	0.8	0.8	0.9	l.l	1.3plan	1.1	1.0	1.2	0.9	1.1	0.9	1.2	1.0Private pension plans Life and health insurance	2.7	4.9	3.9	2.8	1.5	5.5	3.1	2.1plans*6*	2.6	1.5	1.2	1.6	1.1	0.6	0.8	1.0Other plans*7*	0.4	0.1	0.1	0.5	0.2	0.0	0.1	0.1Total	8.6	8.8	7.1	8.7	5.2	8.0	6.5	5.9Total compensation	108.6	108.8	107.1	108.7	105.2	108.0	106.5	105.9*'* All employees, excluding	tart-time and casual	wage-earners.	- Nil	or zero.	
(3) Regular basic salaries, including pay for time not worked.
*4* Includes commissions.
*5* Includes underground production bonus.
*6* Includes provincial medicare, provided employer payments are not "Taxable benefits". *7* Includes Supplementary Unemployment Benefit Plans.
Amount too small to be expressed.
.. Not available.
... Figures not appropriate or not applicable.
Because of rounding, individual amounts may not equal totals.



CANADIAN METALS INDUSTRY


Mr. Herbert: For each of the past ten years, what is the percentage of total assets controlled by USA companies in the Canadian primary metals industry?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Statistics Canada reports that the following are the percentages of assets controlled by USA companies in the Canadian primary metals industry. 1974, 7 per cent; 1973, 7 per cent; 1972, 7 per cent; 1971, 8 per cent; 1970, 35 per cent; 1969, 36 per cent; 1968, 48 per cent; 1967,*** N/A. 1966,*** N/A. 1965,*** N/A.
* A large Canadian-based multinational was reclassified from foreign to Canadian control as a result of a shift of a significant volume of shares to Canada.
** A significant discontinuity exists between 1968 and 1969 as a result of the reclassification to the metal mining industry of several large integrated mining and smelting and refining companies formerly classified to the primary metal industry.
*** No data series on control existed prior to 1968.


Mr. Jelinek: 1.	How many directors are employed in the Loto Canada Programme?
2.	What are their salaries?
3.	What is the total number employed by Loto Canada?
4.	What are the salary ranges of these employees?
5.	By province, what are the names of the distributors for Loto Canada?
6.	How many winning numbers drawn in the last Loto Canada draw were unsold tickets?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1. Seven.
2.	President, $41,000-554,000; Executive Vice President Financial Institutions, $35,500-547,500; Treasurer, $31,500-$41,500; Executive Director Marketing, $31,500-541,500; Executive Director Research, $31,500-541,500; Executive Director Eastern Region, $31,500-541,500; Executive Director Western Region, $31,500-541,500.
3.	There are 103 people employed by Loto Canada on a permanent basis.
4.	Administrative Support Staff, $6,700-515,500; Managerial and Professional Group, $12,300-532,800; Executive Group, $27,600-554,000.
5.	Nova Scotia: 1, Sport Nova Scotia; Newfoundland:!, Arrow Distributors; 1, L. Lawrence; Prince Edward Island: 1, SportZ Prince Edward Island; New Brunswick: 1, D. Gaudet;

April 28, 1977
Order Paper Questions
2,	G. Woodside; 3, Francis Drisdelle; 4, P. Bourque; Quebec:
I,	Les Agences Debo Inc.; 2, Mauri Inc.; 3, Distribution
J.	A.C. Enrg.; 4, Les Agences Vinola Enrg.; 5, Patrice Vachon Inc.; 6, Les Entreprises Guevaro Inc.; 7, Distributions Bois Francs Inc.; 8, Les Distributions Roland Boulanger Inc.; 9, Distribution Dupuis & Fils Enrg.; 10, Les Distributions Co-Bar Inc.; 11, Les Distributions J.G.B. Inc.; 12, Distributions Gerand Inc.; 13, Les Distributions Huet Desmarais Inc.; 14, Agences de Dist. Tamarac Inc.; 15, Gerard Blanchard; 16, Marmen & Desbiens Enrg.; 17, Les Distributions Faco Inc.; 18 Les Dist. Gilbert Ltee; 19, Les Distributions Cabot Inc.; 20, Les Distributions Prepola; 21, Distributions Grande-Allee; 22, L.C.L. Distributions; 23, L.P. Distributions; 24, Disro Inc.; 25, Michel Courcy; 26 Les Entreprises T.P.; 27, Lerpo Outaouais; 28, Dist. de Nord-Ouest du Quebec Inc.; 29, Les Entreprises J.P.C. Inc.; 30, Solopic Ltee; 31, Dist. F.F.J. Inc.; 32, Invest. J.M.L. Inc.; 33, Penelope Dist. Inc.; 34, Piclo Enrg.; 35, Les Distributions J.G. Inc.; 36, Canlo Inc.; 37, Les dist. B.L.T. Inc.; 38, Lini Inc.; 39, Dist. de billets Montreal Inc.; 40, Fernand Bonin; 41, dist. Millionex Inc.; 42, M. Roger Hamel; 44, Centreb Inc.; 46, Dist. Jean-Real Inc.; 47, Les Dist. G.S. Inc.; 48, Societe du tourisme de la Baie James; 49, Les agences Fremont Decoste Enrg. Ontario: 1, James Fitzpatrick; 2, Lupic Inc.; 3, J. Sheehan; 4, Coots Holdings Ltd.; 5, Frank Butler Dist.; 7, S. Freeman & Ass.; 8, Williams Wholesale; 9, Cliff Derick Enterprises; 10, J. Tully; 11, Beneficial Fund Raisers Ltd.; 12, L. Moldenhauer; 13, C. McDonald Inc.; 14, RAWB Distributors; 15, Gary Michaels Inc. Dist.; 16, E.J. Sheehan; 17, Donna's Lottery Sales; 18, Vacant; 19, Tee Mark Distributing; 21, Don Thompson; 25, S.R. Fulford; 26, Harry R. Anthony; 28, Maurice Guevremont; 29, D. Newell; 30, Philip J. Brideaux; 31, W. Comuzzi; 33, Basdon Ltd.; 34, K. Brooks; 35, Bramaco Marketing Services; 36, Webjo Management Ltd.; 37, Gordon F. Edick & Son Ltd.; 39, Downtown Lottery Inc.; 40, Bon Rand Electronics Dist. Ltd.; 42, K.B. Sales; 43, Lottery Lane Ltd.; 44, A. Blumberg; 45, E. Winkler; 47, Canex. Manitoba: 1, William G. MacKay; 2, Vacant; 3, Rose Wall Holdings. Saskatchewan: 1, Grand Slam Distributors; 2, Big Sky Distributors; 3, L. Sutton. Alberta: 1, John Salus; 3, Commonwealth Games; 4, Win Canada Ticket Sales; 5, Jean-Paul Proulx. British Columbia: 1, Howell & Currie Inc.; 2, Smith and Sunninge; 3, L. and M. Lottery Sales Ltd.; 4, Windfall Services Ltd.; 5, E.M. Howell; 6, Rudin and Cranfield Wholesalers Ltd.; 7, Dobo Distributors Ltd.; 8, Ray Labbe.
6.	Five tickets bearing a complete number identical to one of the complete numbers selected during the first draw were unsold tickets.



AVAILABILITY OF LOTTERY TICKETS

Mr. Kaplan: Has the government undertaken, or does it plan any study, of the social consequences of the increased availability of lottery tickets in Canada?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Loto Canada does not know of any such study being contemplated at the present time.
[Mr. Poulin.)



CEILING TILES

Mr. Jones: 1.	Did the specifications with regard to Contract No. 13-6-069232, Supply and Installation of new Ceiling Tile, Fourth Floor, Government of Canada Building, Moncton, New Brunswick specify an American tile that wholesales for 90 cents per square foot when an equivalent Canadian-made tile wholesales for 40 cents per square foot and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Did the contract specify replacement of all the ceiling tiles when a small portion would have been adequate and, if so, for what reason?


Alexandre Cyr: 1. No, the specifications did not specify an American tile.
2.	The contract specified replacement of all ceiling tile due to leaking damage and electrical renovations.



PUBLIC SERVICE CAREER-ORIENTED SUMMER EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM

Mr. O'Sullivan: 1.	How many persons participated in the Public Service Career-Oriented Summer Employment Programme in (a) 1972 (b) 1973 (c) 1974 (d) 1975 (e) 1976 to date in (i) the Atlantic Provinces (ii) Quebec (iii) Ontario (iv) the Western Provinces (v) the Territories?
2.	What (a) number (b) percentage of the participants found summer employment through the Programme?
3.	What has been the cost of conducting the Programme in (a) 1972 (b) 1973 (c) 1974 (d) 1975 (e) 1976?
4.	Of those hired under the Programme what percentage (a) remained in the Public Service after the end of the period of employment (b) were re-hired in later years (i) under the same or other recruitment programmes (ii) upon graduation from the post-secondary institution?


John (Moody) Roberts: 1 am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1.
Career-Oriented Summer Employment Program (COSEP)
	Applications received		
Atlantic		Western	
Year Provinces	Quebec	Ontario Provinces*	Total
1972Figures for 1972 not available			
1973 2448	5649	5910 3934	179411974 2787	4253	8487 5136	206631975 2318	9820	6424 4057	226191976 2404	7044	6864 3832	20144* Please note that applications from the territories arc included under the	western provinces.	2. Students appointed under the Career-Oriented Summer	Employment Program	(COSEP).	Percentage of	Year	Number hired	applicants hired	1972	4506	N/A	1973	4039	22.5 per cent	1974	2109	10.2 per cent	1975	1897	8.3 per cent	1976	1334	6.6 per cent	3. Cost of conducting COSEP.	Year	Man-years	Non-salary	Data for 1972 and 1973 unavailable	1974	6	$7,500	1975	6	$7,500	1976	6	$7,500	
April 28, 1977

4.	(a) Since this program is open only to students returning to full-time studies in the fall following their summer work, students could not be retained for regular employment, (b) (i) Figures not available for 1972. 1338 students re-employed under COSEP for the summer of 1973 (33 per cent of COSEP positions). 1030 students re-employed under COSEP for the summer of 1974 (48.8 per cent of COSEP positions). 520 students re-employed under COSEP for the summer of 1975 (27.4 per cent of COSEP positions). 452 students re-employed under COSEP for the summer of 1976 (33 per cent of COSEP positions), (b) (ii) Data on the number of students employed under COSEP who found employment in the Public Service after graduation is not available.



CANADAIR LIMITED

Mr. Herbert: 1.	What is the maximum number of persons that have been working under contract at Canadair Ltd., Montreal during the past year?
2.	(a) Are unemployment insurance payments made by or on behalf of these persons (b) is personal income tax deducted from the remittances to these persons?
3.	How many are in Canada on a blanket work permit?
4.	Were steps taken to investigate if persons in Canada were qualified to fill the positions and, if so, what were they?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1. The maximum number of persons under contract at Canadair Limited is 110.
2.	These payments and deductions are made by the employers and Canadair does not act on their behalf.
3.	The number of employees covered by the blanket permit totals 85.
4.	Canadair conducted an extensive advertising campaign from coast to coast over a six-month period in order to try to meet its recruiting needs from within Canada. Responses were only partly adequate and program demands were such that additional specialized personnel had to be sought elsewhere. In the meantime, recruiting efforts are being maintained within Canada.



CBC TV CURRENT AFFAIRS EMPLOYEES

Mr. Friesen: 1.	For each year 1974, 1975 and 1976, how many persons were employed in the CBC TV Current Affairs Division (other than the National News, i.e. Newsmagazine, Fifth Estate, Watson Report) in the category of (a) executive
(b)	administration (c) producer (d) reporter/correspondent as (i) full-time (ii) part-time (e) on camera personnel (f) off camera personnel and, in each case, what percentage were considered to be permanent staff?
2.	For the same years, how many reporters/correspondents were employed by the Current Affairs Division for a period of (a) one month to three months (b) three months to six months (c) six months to one year (d) one year or more (e) less than one month?
Order Paper Questions


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1.
1974/75	1975/76	1976/77(a)	2	3	3(b)	14	17	18(c)	29	25	33(d)	(i) (ii) 5	-	-(e)	6	8
(fj For each year, included in answer to (a).
(b) and (c).
Permanent
(a)	2	3	3(b)	10	14	15(c)	12	13	16(d)	(i)	-	-	-(ii)	-	
-
(e)		-	1	1
Note: These figures do not include Newsmagazine, which is part of the news department. The figures for Newsmagazine form part of the reply to questions nos. 1967 and 1968. The Fifth Estate is included above; detailed figures for this program are contained in the reply to question no. 1973.
2. The only reporters/correspondents in the current affairs department are with The Fifth Estate. See reply to question no. 1973 ordered this day.



Mr. Friesen: 1.	For each year 1974, 1975 and 1976, how many persons were employed in the CBC TV National News Division in the category of (a) executive (b) administrative (c) producer (d) news reporter as (i) full-time (ii) part-time (e) on camera personnel?
2.	For the same years, what was the budget for the Division?
3.	(a) How many free-lance reporters' submissions to the National News were purchased by the Corporation in 1974, 1975 and 1976 (b) what was the cost (c) how many of the submissions were aired on the National News (d) what was done with the submissions purchased but not aired?
4.	For the same years, by province and territory, how many free-lance reporters were employed by the National News?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1.
1974/75	1975/76
(a)	5	5(b)	11	11(c)	14	14(d>
(i: (ii:	) 26 )	26(e)	2	2
1976/77
11
28 (all on-camcra personnel)
2 (in addition to those in 2(d) (ii) above)
Note: As with all TV programs there are technical and off-camera staff such as studio cameramen, library personnel and VTR operators who work on all categories of programs. These are not included in the above figures because it is not possible to separate out their involvement in each program.

April 28, 1977
Order Paper Questions
2.	It has not been customary to require the CBC to supply such details of its internal management and administration as the budgets of individual program departments. The background to this custom is explained in detail in the reply to Question No. 2,530, May 22, 1975.
3.
1974/ 75	1975/76 1976/77
(a)	24	16	45
(b)	See reply to 2 above.
(c)	23	14	41
(d)	Submissions purchased but not aired are either retained for library purposes or discarded.
4.	None. CBC uses its own personnel within Canada. Freelance contributions listed in 3 above are from reporters based abroad.



CBC &quot;NEWS MAGAZINE&quot; EMPLOYEES

Mr. Friesen: 1.	For each year 1974, 1975 and 1976, how many persons were employed in the production of CBC TV Programme "News Magazine" in the category (a) on camera personnel (b) off camera personnel (c) of a technical capacity (d) of an administrative capacity (e) as a reporter/correspondent and, in each case, how many were considered permanent employees?
2.	For the same years, how many of the reporters/correspondents were employed on the Programme for a period of (a) less than one month (b) one month to three months (c) three months to six months (d) six months to one year?
3.	(a) On how many occasions were other than Canadian production facilities used (b) in what locations were such facilities (c) what was the cost of such facilities for each year 1974, 1975 and 1976?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1.
(a) (b)	1974/75 |	1975/76 1	1976/77 16	1 6	1 6(c)	4	4	4(d)	2	2	2(e)	3	3	4Permanent: (a)	1	1	1(b)	4	4	4(c)	3	3	3(d)	2	2	2(e)	3	3	4
Note: The staff assigned to "News Magazine" are also responsible for producing all TV news specials. Additional personnel from the news department contribute to "News Magazine" from time to time.
2.	(a) None, (b) None, (c) None, (d) None.
3.	With the exception of occasional film shoots involving freelance films crews outside Canada, there have been no occasions during 1974, 1975 and 1976 on which other than Canadian production facilities have been used to produce "News Magazine".



CBC CHILDREN'S PROGRAMS

Mr. Friesen: 1.	For each year 1975 and 1976, by month and by province, how many children's programmes were produced in the regional studios (by province) of CBC and how many were aired on the national network?

2.	For the same years, by month, how many programmes primarily of interest to women were produced in the regional studios of CBC and, in each case (a) what was the location (b) which ones were aired on the national network?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. Regionally produced/Network broadcast:
1975/76	1976/77
Original Repeats Original Repeats
British Columbia	3	35	27	3Alberta-Edmonton	1	-	2	1Manitoba	197*	63*	201*	51'Windsor	-	-	1	Ontario-Ottawa	30	5	13	-Quebec	3	171	92	184Nova Scotia	1	-	3	1Newfoundland	-	-	2	-* Regional contribution to "Sesame Street" 15 minutes Regionally produced/Regionally broadcast:	per program.	British Columbia	13	39	Alberta-Edmonton	35	39	-Ontario-Toronto	25	-	-Ottawa	39	-	-	-Nova Scotia	39	-	38	-Newfoundland	32	-	32	-
2. The objectives of CBC television programs, network, regional and local, are such that, while the audience at certain times of the day is predominantly female, there are no programs in the schedules that are designed to be primarily of interest to women. Programs are designed to have a wide appeal, whether they are on subjects of particular interest to women or men. (a) and (b) Not applicable.



CBC SERIALS PRODUCED IN REGIONAL STUDIOS

Mr. Friesen: 1.	For each season 1974, 1975 and 1976, how many serials (i.e., "The Beachcombers") were produced in the regional (other than Toronto) studios of CBC and what was the location in each case?
2.	For the same seasons, how many serials of the same nature were produced in the Toronto studio?
3.	For the same seasons, how many variety musical series (i.e., "Irish Rovers") were produced in the regional studios (other than Toronto) of CBC and what was the location in each case?
4.	For the same seasons, how many serials of the same nature were produced in the Toronto studio?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1974/75	1975/76	1976/77Episodes	Episodes	Episodes
Original Repeats Original Repeats Original Repeats
1.	Vancouver	23	-	37	29	2.	Toronto	68	-	102	-	69	3.	Vancouver	42	28	62	22	141	25Edmonton	42	3	5	-	13	2Winnipeg	13	1	11	1	20	5Ottawa	2	-	-	-	5	Montreal	24	-	4	.	14	Halifax	47	39	41	36	28	2St. John's	14	7	10	7	17	14.	Toronto	517	30	365	141	384	17
Note: All programs were broadcast on the network.
April 28, 1977



CBC PROGRAMS ON SPECIFIC SUBJECTS

Mr. Friesen: 1.	For each season 1974, 1975 and 1976, on how many occasions was an event or specific subject, other than sports, the subject of programmes produced by CBC and aired on successive nights series fashion?
2.	In each case (a) what was the subject (b) in what location was it produced
(c)	was it aired on the national network?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1 and 2. The CBC has not telecast any programs which (like "Roots" on ABC) were scheduled on successive nights, dealing with a single subject, in the same time period. There have been programs aired on successive nights but dealing with a different subject each night. Some special events, such as political conventions, have been broadcast on more than one night. There was a drama serial, "House of Pride", which was
Order Paper Questions
broadcast on two nights each week, but these were not successive nights.



CBC PRIME TIME PROGRAMS

Mr. Friesen: 1.	For each year 1975 and 1976, by month, how many prime time (a) 1/2 hour (b) 1 hour (c) 1 1/2 hour programmes were produced by the regional studios (other than Toronto) of CBC and, in each case, how many were aired (i) on the national network (ii) only in the region of origination?
2.	In each case, how many of the productions were produced by individuals (a) living in the respective region (b) sent from the Toronto facilities?
3.	For the same years, by province, how many (a) current affairs programmes (b) variety programmes (i) 1/2 hour (ii) 1 hour (iii) 1 1/2 hours long, were produced in CBC regional studios and, in each case, how many were aired on the national network?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1.
1975/76
Program	Total	AiredLength	Programs	NetworkVancouver	30'	471	19560'	573	3090'	28	22Edmonton	30'	421	1360'	3	3Regina	30'	159	-60'	147	1290'	3	-Winnipeg	30'	149	1360'	201	-90'	15	14Ottawa	30'	701	9960'	213	990'	4	4Montreal	30'	69	1860'	264	-90'	1	1Halifax	30'	695	2560'	2	1St. John's	30'	125	-60'	221	-
1976/77
Aired	Program	Total	Aired	AiredLocal	Length	Programs	Network	Local276	30'	316	136	180543	60'	565	32	5336	90'	57	52	5409	30'	423	22	421-	60'	4	1	3159	30'	135	3	132135	60'	144	-	1443	90'	-	-136	30'	167	1 3	154201	60'	200	1	1991	90'	4	4	-602	30'	614	76	538204	60'	205	7	198-	90'	2	2	-51	30'	97	29	68264	60'	264	-	26490'	1	-	1670	30'	667	19	6481	60'	9	9	-125	30'	149	15	134221	60'	218	-	218
2. Vancouver: 72 programs used outside producers. Edmonton: 2 programs with Toronto involvement. Regina: 3 programs used Toronto producers. Winnipeg: 3 programs used Toronto producers. Ottawa: 23 programs used Toronto producers. Montreal: 1 program used Toronto producer. Halifax: 2 programs used Toronto producers.
Note: All programs referred to in 2 were broadcast on the network.
3.	(a)
Vancouver	30'	16	2	14	30'	6	-	660'	265	2	263	60'	266	1	26590'	11	11	-	90'	16	15	1Edmonton	30'	239	-	239	30'	238	1	23760'	2	-	2	60'	2	[DOT] -	2Regina	30'	126	-	126	30'	112	-	11260'	134	-	134	60'	140	-	14090'	3	-	3	90'	-	-	-Winnipeg	30'	75	-	75	30'	66	-	6660'	201	-	201	60'	197	-	19790'	1	-	1	90'	-	-	-
April 28, 1977
Order Paper Questions
1975/76	1976/77
Program	Total	Aired	Aired	Program	Total	Aired	AiredLength	Programs	Network	Local	Length	Programs	Network	LocalToronto	30'	435	-	435	30'	395	395-local	60'	195	-	195	60'	247	247Ottawa	30'	191	33	168	30'	173	42	13160'	197	7	190	60'	198	7	191Montreal	30'	12	-	12	30'	46	-	4660'	266	2	264	60'	268	268Halifax	30'	515	515	30'	520	520St. John's	30'	42	42	30'	41	-	4160'	219	219	60'	217	217(b)	Vancouver	30'	40	40	-	30'	108	104	4Repeats	21	21	-	25	25	60'	22	21	1	60'	36	36	-90'	-	-	90'	1	1	-Edmonton	30'	30	25	5	30'	27	13	17Repeats	2	2	-	2	2	-60'	6	6	-	60'	-	[DOT]-	Regina	30'	5	5	30'	3	-	360'	-	f-	60'	3	3Winnipeg	30'	47	47	-	30'	47	43	4Repeats	1	1	-	5	5	Toronto	30'	11	11	30'	14	-	14docal	Ottawa	30'	10	-	10	30'	12	-	1260'	1	1	-	60'	-	Montreal	30'	5	4	1	30'	36	14	22Halifax	30'	84	41	43	30'	40	19	21Repeats	36	36	2	2	St. John's	30'	23	10	13	30'	42	17	25Repeats	7	7	1	1	60'	2	1	1	60'



CBC &quot;MUSICAMERA&quot; BROCHURE

Mr. Clarke: 1.	How many CBC Television Musicamera brochures have been printed and at what cost?
2.	In what locations have the brochures been distributed and at what cost?
3.	Who is responsible for paying for the distribution of the brochures?


John (Moody) Roberts: 1 am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. 30,000, $17,751.30.
2.	By network office to music, culture, and art centres, little theatres, universities, libraries and art galleries. By CBC regional centres to members of the public requesting information on the "Musicamera" series. Cost for bulk shipment from the printers was $226.50. No separate records were kept of mailing from CBC locations.
3.	CBC was responsible for the cost of the initial bulk distribution and for lists of organizations and interested individuals.
Note: The brochures were the major publicity and promotion support for this important series for the full season.



FBDB OFFICE IN WILLIAMS LAKE

Mr. Brisco: 1.	In 1975, how many officers of FBDB visited Williams Lake from the Prince George office and what was the frequency of their visits?
2.	How many applications were processed by FBDB during 1975 and originating in Williams Lake and how many were (a) accepted (b) rejected?
3.	(a) In 1976, what criteria were utilized to determine the need to open an FBDB office in Williams Lake (b) for what reason was a main street, store front location in a property of high commercial value chosen as the location (c) how many employees are presently on the payroll since the office was established at Williams Lake?
4.	How many applications have been processed in 1976 by the Williams Lake office since it was opened?
5.	Were alterations made to the offices in Williams Lake and, if so (a) at what cost (b) who bore the cost?
6.	(a) What company provided the furnishings for the office and where is it located (b) what was the total value of such furnishings (c) were bids ever called for within the community of Williams Lake for the provision of such furnishings?
7.	What is the monthly cost of operations of the office in Williams Lake in terms of rent, heat, light, etc?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: In so far as the Federal Business Development Bank is concerned: it has not been the
April 28, 1977

practice nor is it considered appropriate to answer questions which relate to the direction and management of the Federal Business Development Bank. By its act of incorporation, the responsibility for the direction and management of the business of the bank rests with the board of directors.



ARMAND FRAPPIER INSTITUTE

Mr. Yewchuk: Was the Armand Frappier Institute chosen as the sole agency for the ab initio production of Canadian swine influenza vaccines and, if so, for what reason?


Marc Lalonde: The Armand Frappier Institute was not chosen and did not conduct ab initio production of swine influenza vaccine. The company diluted bulk swine influenza vaccine obtained from abroad and used it to produce a bivalent vaccine in Canada.



ARMAND FRAPPIER INSTITUTE DELIVERIES

Mr. Yewchuk: Did the Armand Frappier Institute deliver any units of swine influenza vaccine in 1976, and, if so (a) how many (b) on what dates (c) what percentage of total monovalent supplies did the quantity constitute (d) at what cost per unit?


Marc Lalonde: Yes. (a) 250,000 doses of bivalent vaccine were supplied, (b) December 29th, 1976. (c) Zero percentage. (Armand Frappier produced no monovalent vaccine), (d) The contract was on a no profit basis and the cost is estimated to be between $1.30 to $1.40 per dose, subject to a final audit.
Order Paper Questions
(b) No. (i) Not applicable, (ii) Not applicable, (iii) Not applicable.



SWINE FLU VACCINE UTILIZED BY PROVINCE

Mr. Yewchuk: How many units of (a) monovalent (b) bivalent swine influenza vaccine were administered in each province and territory in 1976?
Hon. Marc Laionde (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Firm figures are not available from all provinces. However, based on estimates of 30 per cent utilization of available vaccine, approximately 1.5 million doses have been administered, predominantly bivalent vaccine, to those in the high risk groups. Figures reported to the Department of National Health and Welfare are:
(a)	(b)
Monovalent	Bivalent
Newfoundland	*	9.027Prince Edward Island	6,004	3,742Nova Scotia	NR	NRNew Brunswick	*	20,101Quebec	*	NROntario	NR	NRManitoba	*	24,076Saskatchewan	NR	NRAlberta	NR	NRBritish Columbia	*	NRYukon	794	97North-West Territories	1,119	631Native population resident in provinces but served by Medical Services, Health and Welfare	26,040	4,547
* Province "stockpiled" monovalent vaccine. NR No figures reported.



SWINE FLU VACCINE

Mr. Yewchuk: Were any units of (a) monovalent (b) bivalent swine influenza vaccine imported in 1977 and, if so, how many?


Marc Lalonde: (a) and (b). No swine influenza vaccines have been imported in 1977 in order to satisfy government contracts.



IMPORTATION OF SWINE FLU VACCINE

Mr. Yewchuk: Was any (a) monovalent (b) bivalent swine influenza vaccine imported in 1976 and, if so, in each case, what was the (i) unit cost (ii) total cost, F.O.B. country of origin?


Marc Lalonde: (a) Yes. (i) The present estimated cost for monovalent vaccine is less than one dollar per dose. Precise costs will not be available until government auditors have completed an examination of financial records of the suppliers. Contracts were made with Canadian processors on a no profit basis as confirmed by audit, (ii) See (a)(i) above, (iii) See (a)(i) above.



PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION ACCOUNT

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	What was the total amount at credit in the Public Service Superannuation Account as at (a) March 31, 1974 (b) March 31, 1975 (c) March 31, 1976?
2.	What rate of interest has the government paid for the use of this money during the Fiscal years ending on the dates noted above?
3.	What amount of interest was credited to the Public Service Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1974 (b) March 31, 1975 (c) March 31, 1976?
4.	What was the total amount paid out of the Public Service Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1974 (b) March 31, 1975 (c) March 31, 1976?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: 1. (a) $5,427,502,239; (b) $6,420,297,891; (c) $7,312,248,146.
2.	Quarter Ending June 30, 1973, 1.5042; September 30, 1973, 1.5252; December 31, 1973, 1.5364; March 31, 1974, 1.5490; June 30, 1974, 1.5642; September 30, 1974, 1.5900; December 31, 1974, 1.6259; March 31, 1975, 1.6363; June 30, 1975, 1.6612; September 30, 1975, 1.6724; December 31, 1975, 1.7109; March 31, 1976, 1.7209.
3.	(a) $202,866,916; (b) $227,008,801; (c) $263,884,375.

April 28, 1977
Order Paper Questions
4.	(a) $163,297,280; (b) $184,831,352; (c) $21 1,647,033.



WIVES OF UNINCORPORATED FARMERS

Mr. Howie: 1.	Can wives of unincorporated farmers earn income from the farm and receive Canada Pension Plan benefits with separate tax treatment on such income?
2.	Does the same rule apply to the wife of a merchant who is a sole proprietor if the wife works in the business?


Miss Monique Begin (Minister of National Revenue):: 1. If
the farmer operates the farm as a sole proprietorship he is precluded by subsection 74(3) of the Income Tax Act from paying his wife a salary which would be subject to Canada Pension Plan contributions and would thereby entitle her to benefits under the plan. If the farmer and his wife are carrying on the farming business in partnership the wife's share of the partnership income would be subject to Canada Pension Plan contributions and would thereby entitle her to benefits.
2. The above principles would be equally applicable in the case of a merchant and his wife.
County
Percentage in default
Parkland	21.7
Leduc	16.9
Wetaskiwin	18.5
Ponoka	21.9



BRUCELLOSIS

Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	How many beef and dairy cattle have been destroyed by the Department of Agriculture because of brucellosis or Bang's disease in (a) 1975 (b) 1976?
2.	What was the average reimbursement paid per cow?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. 1974-75, 15,924; 1975-76, 21,516.
2. 1974-75, $202.38; 1975-76, $243.08. Reply to question 2,383 in the first session of the thirtieth parliament was not complete statistics for the 1974-75 fiscal year. (2,383 answered June 6, 1975)



LOANS UNDER FARM CREDIT ACT

Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	How many applications were received from the counties of (a) Parkland (b) Leduc (c) Wetaskiwin (d) Ponoka, Alberta for loans under the Farm Credit Act for the year (i) 1974-75 (ii) 1975-76?
2.	How many were approved?
3.	What amount was involved?
4.	What percentage of the loans were made or are in default?


Eugene Whelan: Farm Credit Corporation advises: 1. Applications are not recorded according to counties, but on the basis of field areas established for administrative purposes which, where possible, match county boundaries. In the four field areas in which the counties are located there were:
Year (i)	1974-75 (ii)	1975-76	Applications 269 338	Loan approvals arc	recorded by county. 2. No. of Loan	3. Total $ AmountCounty	Year	Approvals	ApprovedParkland	1974-75	21	1,152,8001975-76	25	1,700,000Leduc	1974-75	40	2,312,4001975-76	55	4,011,000Wetaskiwin	1974-75	36	2,015,7001975-76	29	2,083,500Ponoka	1974-75	56	3,381,1001975-76	67	3,919,0004.	Of the number of loans approved in 1974-75 and 1975-76, the number in default as at March 1, 1977 expressed as a percent are:



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS REGIONAL DIRECTOR, QUEBEC

Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	How long has Mr. J. A. Laurendeau been Regional Director for Quebec in the Department of Public Works?
2.	Has he been removed from his office and, if so, on what date and for what reason?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Since July 1, 1972.
2. Mr. Laurendeau was suspended from his office, effective February 1, 1977, because he acted in a manner that was in conflict with his duties and responsibilities as regional director.



UNEMPLOYMENT AND DISCRIMINATION-OLDER WORKERS

Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What is the government's best estimate of the average number of weeks it takes for unemployed persons in the age groups (a) 25 to 34, (b) 35 to 44, (c) 45 to 54, (d) 55 to 64, (e) 65 and over, to find employment once they begin to look?
2.	As a percentage of the total number of persons over age 45 who were unemployed and looking for work, what is the government's best estimate of the number looking for work for six months or more in (a) 1970, (b) 1971, (c) 1972,
(d)	1973, (e) 1974, (0 1975, (g) 1976?
3.	What is the government's best estimate of the amount it has spent in the fiscal year (a) 1970-71, (b) 1971-72, (c) 1972-73, (d) 1973-74, (e) 1974-75, (0 1975-76, in attempting to persuade employers to voluntarily cease discrimination on the basis of age in hiring, dismissals and terms and conditions of employment?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: 1. The government does not have estimates of statistics sought by the hon. member.
2. The percentage of unemployed persons aged 45 years and over who were looking for work for six months or more was as follows: 1970, 28.2; 1971, 29.6; 1972, 30.3; 1973, 26.8; 1974, 25.3; 1975, 24.6; 1976, not yet available. These estimates are
April 28, 1977

based on the old Labour Force Survey. The estimates from the Revised Labour Survey are not available at the present time.
3. Under the Unemployment Insurance Act, our officers are forbidden to accept orders from employers or to make referrals to employment which contain discriminatory provisions in eight areas. One of these areas is age. We cannot calculate the cost of the efforts our officers make to eliminate age discrimination on the part of employers. No direct money was spent during the fiscal years 1970-71 to 1975-76 in attempting to persuade employers to voluntarily cease discrimination on the basis of age in hiring, dismissals and terms and conditions of employment.



CBC-MEETINGS OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Mr. Halliday: Is there an article in the constitution or by-laws of CBC which provides that all meetings of the board of Directors shall be held in camera and, if so, what is it?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: it is not a requirement of the by-laws of the CBC that meetings of the board of directors be held in camera, or privately. Since, however, the CBC was established as a Crown corporation, to ensure its independence from political or commercial interference in the production and broadcasting of a national program service, it has many of the attributes of a corporation in the private sector. One of those attributes is the holding of private meetings of its board of directors. The effectiveness of the board's frank discussions of matters of internal management and administration would be lessened if its meetings were held in public. The public is represented by the board of directors whose members are chosen from the various geographic regions of Canada and from various walks of life. In addition, the public can make its views known to the president of the CBC.



LOTO CANADA

Mr. Clarke: 1.	How much has the government spent advertising Loto Canada (a) in newspapers (b) on radio (c) on television?
2.	Has a "ticket hotline" or phone number, at which interested individuals may find out where remaining Loto Canada tickets are located, been operating and, if so, in which cities?
3.	How many people have been employed in the "ticket hotline" operation and how much have they been paid?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: 1. There is no cost to the government for the advertising of Loto Canada. The money spent by Loto Canada for its advertising is as follows: (a) See below, (b) See below, (c) See below.
2. "Ticket hotline" telephone numbers were published in various dailies throughout the country. For the names of cities involved, see below.
Order Paper Questions
3. The telephone numbers involved in the "ticket hotline" were those of Loto Canada distributors who are independent business people or firms. Any charges involved in this "hotline" were paid by those distributors, not by Loto Canada. Advertising Budget: Draw No. 1 From: August 23, 1976, To: December 5, 1976; Newspapers, 797,318.20; Radio, 999,746.47; Television, 1,019,981.66. Draw No. 2 From: December 6, 1976, To: March 13, 1977; Newspapers, 1,104,684.24; Radio, 646,763.43; Television, 600,323.12. Draw No. 3 From: March 14, 1977, To: June 12, 1977; Newspapers, 682,546.00; Radio, 646,468.52; Television, 617,803.02. British Columbia: Kamloops; Kelowna; Nanaimo; Nelson; New Westminster; Port Alberni; Prince George; Vancouver; Vernon; Victoria. Alberta: Calgary; Edmonton; Fort McMurray; Grande-Prairie; Lethbridge; Medicine Hat. Saskatchewan: Moose Jaw; Prince Albert; Regina; Saskatoon. Manitoba: Brandon; Flin Flon; Portage la Prairie; Thompson; Winnipeg. Nova Scotia: Halifax; Sydney. Prince Edward Island: Charlottetown. Ontario: Barrie; Belleville; Brantford; Brockville; Cambridge; Chatham; Cornwall; Fort Frances; Guelph; Hamilton; Kenora; Kingston; Kirkland Lake; Kitchener; London; Niagara Falls; North Bay; Orillia; Oshawa; Ottawa; Owen Sound; Pembroke; Peterborough; Ste Catharines; St. Thomas; Sarnia; Sault Ste-Marie; Simcoe; Stratford; Sudbury; Thunder Bay; Timmins; Toronto; Welland; Windsor; Woodstock. Quebec: Montreal; Quebec. New Brunswick: Fredericton; Moncton; Saint John.



FARM COMMODITY WAREHOUSE INSPECTION

Mr. Stevens: As of December 31 (a) 1968 (b) 1976, what was the number of federal employees engaged to examine farm commodity warehouses?


Eugene Whelan: (a) 189* (b) 228. *The number of personnel who may have examined warehouse facilities associated with dairy products in 1968 is not available. The comparable figure for 1976 was 20. Departmental personnel devote only a small part of their time in the examination of farm commodity warehouses. Generally, examination of storage facilities is incidental to inspection of produce.



MR. JEAN DUCEPPE-RADIO-CANADA

Mr. Herbert: Was Mr. Jean Duceppe of La Compagnie Jean Duceppe employed by Radio-Canada or was he on contract to Radio-Canada and, if so, what was the period and the terms of his employment or contract?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: (a) Monsieur Jean Duceppe has never been a staff employee of the CBC. Over the past thirty years, Mr. Duceppe has worked as a freelance for the CBC under various contracts, both in radio and television, on dramatic series, variety programs and television dramas, (b) It has not been customary to require the CBC to provide such details of its internal management and administration as the clauses of individual contracts with its

April 28, 1977
Order Paper Questions
artists. The background of this custom is explained in detail in the reply to Question No. 2,530, May 22, 1975.



NUCLEAR FREE PACIFIC CONCEPT

Mr. Fairweather: Does Canada support the concept of a nuclear free Pacific and, if so, what action has been taken to give effect to this policy?


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Canada has supported proposals for the creation of nuclear-weapon-free zones in the territories of countries of geographically defined areas as a means of strengthening the non-proliferation system. Any concept of a nuclear-weapon-free zone involving the Pacific ocean itself, however, would not serve the objective of curtailing the proliferation of nuclear weapons either to states that do not have them or in states that do.



RESEARCH ON FATTY ACIDS

Mr. Nystrom: Do recent studies at the University of Illinois appear to confirm the contention that stretched trans-form fatty acid molecules carry more cholesterol into the bloodsteam than the cis-form fatty acid molecule and, if so, what research has been done in Canada, by the government or independent scientists, on whether or not trans-form fatty acids may develop as margarine is being made?


Marc Lalonde: Conclusions about dietary trans unsaturated fatty acids could not be drawn from the experimental work at the University of Illinois. Most research around the world on trans fatty acids indicates that they act like saturated fatty acids. In the Department of National Health and Welfare, margarines were found to have concentrations of these fatty acids varying from 11 per cent to 49 per cent of the total fatty acids. The Department of National Health and Welfare is proposing regulations under the Food and Drugs Act that would require special foods for fat modified diets to contain not more than 40 per cent trans plus saturated fatty acids.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN

Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 1,973 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CBC &quot;FIFTH ESTATE&quot;

Mr. Friesen: 1. For each year 1974, 1975 and 1976, how many persons were employed in the production of CBC Programme "Fifth Estate" in the category (a) on camera
[Mr. Roberts.)
personnel (b) off camera personnel (c) of a technical capacity (d) of an administrative capacity (e) as a reporter/correspondent and, in each case, how many were considered permanent employees?
2.	For the same years, how many reporters/correspondents were employed on the Programme for a period of (a) less than one month (b) one month to three months (c) three months to six months (d) six months to one year?
3.	(a) On how many occasions were other than Canadian production facilities used (b) in what locations were such facilities (c) what was the cost of such facilities for each year 1974, 1975 and 1976?
4.	For the same years, on how many occasions were Canadian reporters/correspondents sent out of the country on assignment for the Programme and, in each case (a) what was the location (b) how many persons were assigned (c) was the material aired on the Programme and, if not (i) for what reason (ii) what was done with the material (d) what was the cost?
Return Tabled.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@for the Minister of Finance: that Bill C-39, to amend the Bank Act and the Quebec Savings Bank Act, be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker in light of the discussion we had yesterday afternoon perhaps I may be permitted to say a word. I have compared the reprinted version of Bill C-39 with the original act it purports to amend, and I am happy to say that it has accomplished the point at which we aimed yesterday. Therefore, I have no objection to passage of this bill on third reading.


An hon. Member:: Did you check the French version, too?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes. As far as I can tell, the French version is all right, also. However, I make the prediction that before next March 31 we shall amend the Bank Act again in order to give it another extension.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
April 28, 1977


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-9 to approve, give effect to and declare valid certain agreements between the Grand Council of the Crees (of Quebec), the Northern Quebec Inuit Association, the Government of Quebec, la Societ6 d'energie de la Baie James, la Societe de developpement de la Baie James, la Commission hydro-electri-que de Quebec, and the government of Canada and certain other related agreements to which the Government of Canada is a party, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern development.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House is to consider motion No. 1, standing in the name of the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner).


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I will move the motion with respect to the proposed amendment, if I may.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister has indicated his intention to move the amendment.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, we have been advised that Your Honour finds some procedural difficulty with motion No. 1 which proposes to add a preamble to the bill. I understand that certain discussions have taken place.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would say that if the Chair has such concerns, I would express them. Whatever advice the minister may have received in respect of such concerns, I only say this: if I had any procedural concerns to express with regard to the motion which proposes to add a preamble to the bill, that is to say, with regard to the motion which the minister responsible for the bill has indicated his intention to move, I would have expressed such concerns of a procedural nature.


William Warren Allmand: With respect to motion No. 1, let me say that this was put forward by way of an amendment to the bill, at the request of the Northern Quebec Inuit Association. After consultation it was agreed to by all the parties, including the Cree of northern Quebec and the government of Quebec.
We have had discussions in the House. It is my understanding that the parties are willing to give unanimous consent to the acceptance of this amendment which would merely add a preamble to the bill and set out in general terms the important aspects of the general agreement. For the Inuit this is not an
James Bay Agreement
ordinary statute but is in a sense a constitutional document. They requested this preamble and I understand the parties have agreed to it.


Mr. Speaker:: In fairness to the minister, on the point of order I may say that the addition of a preamble at the report stage of a bill raises, if not procedural concerns at least some comment that a preamble, by its very terms, is something that comes before the bill and not after. Regardless of its merit, it is an extraordinary circumstance. It certainly has been examined several times in British practice. It has been found that a preamble cannot be added at the committee stage, in the precedents that are applicable. Since it obviously is not appropriate as a second-reading amendment, the effect of that ruling is that it cannot be introduced as an amendment to the bill which, frankly, troubles me somewhat. Some bills have preambles, and others do not. One has to start from the basic premise that a member probably has the right somewhere along the line at least to attempt to introduce a preamble into bills that do not have preambles-provided the preamble is otherwise procedurally correct.
Whether that can be done at report stage raises some misgivings, but under existing precedents it cannot be done any sooner. There are procedural questions we ought to settle.
I am not certain, in the circumstance, whether unanimous consent of the House would be required for this particular preamble. Obviously, there have been discussions.
I think it is helpful for the minister to have made the observations on the reasons for the preamble being expected and why it is being introduced in this way at this time. Therefore, it is helpful, in those terms, to know the reasons for it and the disposition of the House to support not only the idea of introducing the preamble but also the contents of the preamble as being acceptable in other ways. On the point of order I recognize the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes)-

-and the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) are trying to say something not exactly on the question itself but on the point of order.


John Robert Holmes: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say we did anticipate that there might be some procedural difficulty with this motion. Having said that, we were quite in agreement with the substance of the motion as it was introduced by the Northern Quebec Inuit Association at one of the standing committee hearings. I wish to make one or two observations. Certainly, the motion does make reference to the Cree and Inuit of the particular territory within Quebec. I am somewhat concerned that the minister did not make reference to the ITC specifically of Povungnituk, Sugluk and Inuvik. We are quite in agreement with the intent of the motion in terms of the preamble: there have been discussions in that regard.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that we are quite prepared for
5086

April 28, 1977
James Bay Agreement
this motion to be presented at this stage. As we look at the preamble, we realize that it does not legislate anything. It does not bring anything into effect. It is simply a case of putting some of the history behind the bill into it at its very beginning.
I noted Your Honour's reference to the fact that there are precedents against doing this at the committee stage, and that there are precedents against doing it at the second reading stage. However, I do not think you can find any precedent against doing it at report stage. I doubt if it has ever been tried before. Therefore, this is an historic day, dealing with an historical matter. We give consent to the presenting of this motion at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Before passing on to the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise), I should indicate there is a precedent in Canada. The Bill of Rights is, in fact, a precedent for introducing at a later stage a preamble which was not part of a bill when it was first introduced.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But that was before we had the report stage. [Translation]


Mr. Laprise:: Mr. Speaker, on this point of order requesting permission to add a preamble to Bill C-9 as an amendment, I must say first that it always worries me when such an amendment is brought forward at the last minute. Before giving my consent, with your permission I would like first the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand) to tell me if the Inuit in Sugluk, Povungnituk and Ivujuvik, which delineate the territory of the Hudson Bay, agree with this preamble and if they submitted their recommendations? In addition, did the minister consult the Cree council and the government of the province of Quebec on that matter? If so, why did he not also consult the Inuit council in Sugluk, Povungnituk and Ivujuvik?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I should point out, in the first place, that this preamble was presented by the Northern Quebec Inuit when the bill was before the committee. As Your Honour stated, we were not permitted at that stage to introduce or accept it. Therefore, it is not as if we were springing it on hon. members at the present time. I think, with respect, that the hon. member was away due to sickness. He was not familiar with the committee hearing proposal.
We did consult with all the groups involved. I do not know if there was consultation with Sugluk, Povungnituk and the other community with respect to the preamble. However, they did not object to it. There is nothing in it that would prevent their coming into the agreement at a later date. I did go to Povungnituk and met the three communities. I discussed generally everything in the bill with them. We exchanged views. The minister from Quebec met with them, as well. In any event, there is nothing in the preamble which would prevent their entering into the agreement at a later time.
[ Translation]


Gérard Laprise: On a [joint of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Abitibi on a point of order.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, just a word on this point of order. I realize that the preamble does not alter the substance of the bill itself. That is why I give my consent.


Mr. Speaker:: In any case, the minister has the consent of the House to introduce the motion at this time. Accordingly, Mr. Allmand, for Mr. Penner, seconded by Mrs. Sauve, moves:
Motion No. 1.
That Bill C-9, an act to approve, give effect to and declare valid certain agreements between the Grand Council of the Crees (of Quebec), the Northern Quebec Inuit Association, the government of Quebec, la SociSte d'Snergie de la Baie James, la Soci6te de developpement de la Baie James, la Commission hydro-61ectrique de Quebec and the Government of Canada and certain other related agreements to which the Government of Canada is a party, be amended by inserting immediately before line 1 at page 1 the following:
"Whereas the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec have entered into an agreement with the Crees and the Inuit inhabiting the territory within the purview of the 1898 acts respecting the northwestern, northern and northeastern boundaries of the province of Quebec and the 1912 Quebec boundaries extension acts, and with the Inuit of Port Burwell;
And whereas the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec have assumed certain obligations under the agreement in favour of the said Crees and Inuit;
And whereas the agreement provides, inter alia, for the grant to or the setting aside for Crees and Inuit of certain lands in the territory, the right of the Crees and Inuit to hunt, fish and trap in accordance with the regime established therein, the establishment in the territory of regional and local governments to ensure the full and active participation of the Crees and Inuit in the administration of the territory, measures to safeguard and protect their culture and to ensure their involvement in the promotion and development of their culture, the establishment of laws, regulations and procedures to manage and protect the environment in the territory, remedial and other measures respecting hydroelectric development in the territory, the creation and continuance of institutions and programs to promote the economic and social development of the Crees and Inuit and to encourage their full participation in society, an income support program for Cree and Inuit hunters, fishermen and trappers and the payment to the Crees and Inuit of certain monetary compensation;
And whereas the agreement further provides in consideration of the rights and benefits set forth therein for the surrender by the said Crees, the Inuit of Quebec and the Inuit of Port Burwell of all their native claims, rights, titles and interests, whatever they may be, in and to the land in the territory and in Quebec;
And whereas parliament and the government of Canada recognize and affirm a special responsibility for the said Crees and Inuit;
And whereas it is expedient that parliament approve, give effect to and declare valid the agreement."


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
TWr. Speaker: There remain at this stage four other motions. It is suggested that motion No. 2, in the name of the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes), be debated and voted on separately; that motion No. 3, in the name of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand), which is accompanied by a royal recommendation, should be debated and voted on separately, and that motions Nos. 4 and 5, each in the name of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) might be grouped for debate. It would seem
April 28, 1977
[Stage Direction]
that only one vote would be required in order to dispose of both motions. Is this agreed?
Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Warren Allmand: In order to expedite these matters, I should like to say, on behalf of the government, that we are ready to accept amendments 4 and 5 presented by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil). We are willing to agree to them, and perhaps this will dispose of the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister having given such an indication, the House might be prepared to dispose of these motions at this time without discussion. If that were the case, I would agree to it. However, if there is to be discussion perhaps it could wait until after the other items have been disposed of. If there is no further comment, we shall proceed to motion No. 2 in the name of the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes).


John Robert Holmes: Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-9, an act to approve, give effect to and declare valid certain agreements between the Grand Council of the Crees (of Quebec), the Northern Quebec Inuit Association, the Government of Quebec, la Society d'6nergie de la Baie James, la Societe de developpement de la Baie James, la Commission hydro-electrique de Quebec and the Government of Canada and certain other related agreements to which the Government of Canada is a party, be amended in clause 3, by striking out line 29 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"Territory, of all Indians and all Inuit entitled to be enrolled as beneficiaries under the agreement, where".
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few brief comments on this most important motion standing in my name. I shall refer principally to what are referred to as the third parties or non-signatories to the agreement. May I simply observe that it is unfortunate we do not find in section 3 of the agreement on page 2 the same form that was introduced in the preamble by the minister when he made specific reference to the Cree and to the Inuit territories within the area described by the bill in the province of Quebec.
This, of course, was the critical issue throughout the debate and throughout the hearings conducted by the standing committee. I shall not spend time on any of the other problems which were experienced with regard to the James Bay bill; difficulties in terms of the adversary role by Quebec Hydro and other groups, the difficulties experienced by the Cree and the Inuit in terms of the province of Quebec and the government of Canada-the great difficulty they experienced in arriving at a final determination with respect to this agreement.
I want to focus on the critical issue of the so-called third parties or non-signatories to the agreement. What does this motion really talk about? We are talking about native individuals within the territory, or outside it, who may or may not have rights within the particular area involved in this agreement. It is my contention, and the contention on this side of the House, that if in fact rights do exist there has been gross injustice on the part of the government in extinguishing those
Janies Bay Agreement
rights unilaterally. If they do not exist, then obviously there is no problem. This has been the major contention throughout the entire standing committee hearings. That is the testimony we have heard from innumerable witnesses throughout the hearings.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to go into detail at this time because I know hon. members will recognize that it is clause 2.3 of the bill before us, Bill C-9, and sections 2.14 and 2.16 of the agreement which must be related to this legislation. May I emphasize in this context that on a number of occasions we have given credit to the band council of the Cree, and specifically to Willie Diamond and to the Northern Quebec Inuit Association, for what they have accomplished under extremely difficult circumstances in arriving at a final agreement.
I wish to make it clear that the issue is with neither the band council of the Cree nor with the Northern Quebec Inuit Association who under very trying circumstances arrived at a final settlement-something they did under great adversity although they came up with some excellent sections within the agreement-but with the injustices contained in the legislation before us by which the government would unilaterally move to extinguish the rights of native people, individuals who have rights to that territory or who may well have such rights. The government would do this in unilateral fashion.
The injustice of the decision and of the legislation before us is implicit in the testimony which was given before the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
I have no intention of rehearsing that testimony, but I would simply say it would be a most important exercise for members of this House and, indeed, for people outside, to review the entire content of that evidence and realize what has transpired in terms of the difficulties the native groups experienced in arriving at a final agreement and in particular, the problems relating to the third parties or non-signatories who were completely ignored by the government.
When I spoke during second reading on December 7 last, I made reference to this important aspect and particularly to the Naskapi at Schefferville. It is my understanding that progress has been made with respect to negotiations in that particular area between the Naskapi and the government of Quebec and the government of Canada, and also with the Northern Quebec Inuit Association and the Cree. I would be interested to hear the minister tell us later in the debate precisely where those negotiations now stand, bearing in mind that when he appeared as a witness before the committee he told us in precise terms that he was interested in seeing an agreement consummated, and undertaking that when the legislation reached report stage in the House of Commons, if agreement had not been reached, or if members on this side of the House were not convinced that settlement of an agreement was imminent between the parties involved, he would delay third reading until a month had elapsed. I remind the minister of this because it is extremely important. It is one area in which we on this side of the House are hopeful that negotiations will be completed in terms of the Naskapi at Schefferville.
80012-43Vi

April 28, 1977
James Bay Agreement
1 should like to refer to the Minutes of the Standing Committee meeting of December 16, 1976, page 5:6, which read in part as follows:
So, as I mentioned in my remarks opening up the debate on Bill C-9, we have promised the Naskapi a month's delay before proceeding with third reading of the bill if we have not reached a final settlement before then. I am hoping that we can do that, we are so close. But if it so happens that we finish the committee stage and the report stage and we have not got a settlement with the Naskapi yet, then we would not proceed with the third reading until a month afterwards in order to give more time or at least to give them a delay, that we were going to proceed with third reading in any case if no settlement was reached.
That is an extremely important statement that the minister made at that time. Perhaps he will take the opportunity to bring us up to date on the negotiations and how they are proceeding and to confirm that commitment if there has been no settlement in fact.
As I indicated at the outset, the testimony given before the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development speaks for the injustice of the decision with respect to third parties and non-signatories to the agreement. During the excellent presentation that was made by Chief Diamond of the Grand Council of the Cree, there was testimony to the fact that they had concerns with respect to the agreement and the problem about non-signatories. Again, if I may make reference to the standing committee hearings, I would refer to issue No. 6 of the minutes of the standing committee of January 25, 1977, when the Grand Council of the Cree appeared before the committee. During the testimony given by Mr. O'Reilly we were concerned about this whole issue of third parties' and non-signatories' rights. I would like to quote from the minutes of the standing committee of January 25, 1977, page 6:22, which reads in part:
There is no question as to what is being done. I think the stakes are high for every native group which is involved. There is no question that the stakes are also very high for the governments and the Crown corporations and the other Indians who are involved. The idea is, in effect, to wipe the slate clean over a definite geographic area. There is no question that it is preferable that everybody and anybody who has any interest whatsoever in that full geographic area should be party to the agreement. That would have been the preference; that would have been the best thing. But that would have involved perhaps 20 or 25 groups.
That is the essence of the argument that we made. With Bill C-9 we took no objection to the Grand Council of the Cree or to the Northern Quebec Inuit Association changing some rights for other rights; but we do take exception to the fact that the group of natives who may have rights to that territory have those rights unilaterally extinguished and have no legal vehicle with which to appeal. The intention of the motion before us is to correct this situation. As I said, that was the substance of the debate during the standing committee hearings.
It was rather interesting that the issue of rights was discussed on many occasions. The legal counsel for the Grand Council of the Cree at that time indicated that it was difficult to understand these rights. I would like to quote again from the minutes of the meeting of January 25, 1977, page 6:22, which reads in part:

So that is the dilemma with which Canada was faced. It is not a precedent that is a happy one. On the other hand, the other groups have been told for a couple of years actually that there is this problem, that this is happening, and they would prefer them to negotiate.
The James Bay agreement sets out rights of the native people which have been recognized by the parties involved. They have been exchanged for other rights. That testimony came out time and time again throughout the standing committee hearings. We have tried to make the case and we have tried repeatedly to emphasize that there has been gross injustice by this government unilaterally to exclude the rights of the third parties or non-signatories. During the standing committee hearings we had testimony from the Northern Quebec Inuit Association indicating their concern about third party or non-signatory groups with respect to the agreement.
I will not take the time of the House to go into voluminous detail, but I should make reference to the various groups that appeared before the standing committee and some of the arguments presented with respect to the one specific, important issue to which this motion addresses itself. I would like to refer to the standing committee hearings of February 10, 1977 at which time the Labrador Inuit Association made a very excellent presentation. We had briefs from Mr. Jerry Sillitt, Mr. Paulus Maggo, Mr. William Kalleo, and legal counsel, Mr. Geoffrey Lester, pointing out vividly the problems involved in this legislation and the difficulties they were experiencing in that the legislation would effectively extinguish rights existing in the region involved. I would like to quote from the minutes of the standing committee hearing of February 10, 1977, at page 12:23. This quote from the standing committee is by Mr. Lester, legal counsel for the Labrador Inuit Association, relating to the specific problem of the effect which sections 2.6, 2.14 and 3.3 of the agreement would have relative to their future negotiations. It reads:
There is nothing in that agreement which gives the Labrador people any reason for comfort. But there is a question of loyalty here, not to the Quebec government, not to the federal government, but to other Inuit and native people.
There is more than adequate testimony throughout their presentation indicating that the Labrador Inuit Association have grave concerns about this agreement. May I now refer to the meeting of the standing committee on February 10, 1977, attended by witnesses from the Naskapi Montagnais Innu Association of Labrador. Very briefly and succinctly they pointed out the traditional use of hunting, fishing and trapping in the territory in question under the agreement, and how effectively, when the legislation now before us was introduced, their rights unilaterally would be extinguished, with no leverage to negotiate at a later date.
The National Indian Brotherhood made a very forceful presentation to the standing committee on February 15, 1977, at which time the president of the Brotherhood made two or three points and pointed out that the principal issue, from their standpoint, was with respect to third parties. One of the witnesses, as reported at page 14:11, made the following observations:
April 28, 1977

-there are three concerns, but the main one is this issue of consent or lack thereof of third parties to the agreement. The Brotherhood takes the position that this is certainly contrary to normal concepts of justice, and certainly contrary to the many undertakings that have been obtained from the government in the past several years, that the rights of Indians, Inuit and native peoples will not be interfered with without their consent.
Clause 3(3)-
That is the clause to which the motion now before the House refers.
-states quite clearly that the consents of the third parties will not be necessary to extinguish any native claims to the territory that they might have. I understand it has been brought up in this committee before, that paragraph 214 of the agreement itself would possibly be adequate protection for the rights of the third parties who are not signatories to this agreement, in that, by that paragraph, the government of Quebec has undertaken to negotiate with these third parties on the subject of compensation and benefits to be given to them in exchange for the extinguishment of any rights that they may have. I can only submit on behalf of the Brotherhood that paragraph 214 cannot in any way be looked upon as a satisfactory guarantee to the third parties that these benefits or compensation would be forthcoming.
That is further evidence of the repeated testimony that we received from innumerable groups throughout the standing committee hearings. We had the very special problem of the ITC to which I referred a moment ago, the Inuit of Povung-nituk, Sugluk and Ivujivik, who made a very forceful presentation in regard to the difficulties they were experiencing in accepting this agreement. I am sure there could be some debate as to how they fit in in terms of the non-signatories, as I have indicated in the past. But I want to make it very clear that these three Inuit communities, representing a substantial number of Indians in the northern part of Quebec, made a very strong representation regarding their concern as to the agreement before them.
In my view the minister has not addressed himself to that specific issue. He has not attempted to look for alternatives which would be viable for the Inuit communities as they evolve over a period of years. I would interpret them to be non-signatories, as third parties to the agreement, irrespective of the comments made at the standing committee hearings and irrespective of what comments the minister may make. I simply say that there has been no move by the government effectively to deal with this group.
On February 22 the Naskapi Indians of Schefferville appeared before the standing committee. I know the minister has concerned himself with this matter, and as I indicated earlier I hope he will tell us what progress has been made respecting this particular group, a group which, I may say, was initially ignored prior to the agreement in principle. It was only at the initiative of the opposition and other individuals that there was any movement on the part of the provincial government in the province of Quebec to involve themselves in resolving this issue. As I have said, I hope the minister will take the opportunity to bring the House up to date on what exactly has transpired, and tell us if his commitment holds in terms of his promise that there will not be a third reading until there has been at least some accommodation regarding that particular group, or there has been a settlement with the Naskapi of Schefferville.
James Bay Agreement
On February 23, 1977, the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada made a strong presentation to the standing committee. Although they covered a number of aspects, one of the critically important issues referred to was the so-called third parties who were non-signatories to this agreement. I submit that all members of the House should read that testimony as well as the other testimony to which I alluded earlier.
I would also bring to the attention of the House the report by the Native Council of Canada and the Laurentian Alliance of Metis and Non-Status Indians who appeared before the standing committee on February 24, 1977. As I pointed out at the beginning of my remarks, the critical issue was, once again, the omission of third parties and non-signatories and their strong representation to the government to look at the matter carefully. They asked the government to reconsider and to bring in amendments which would satisfy the possible rights and needs of these individuals in the future. This is why this motion is before us today, to protect those third parties or non-signatories whose rights are to be extinguished by clause 3(3) of this bill.
On March 1, 1977, the standing committee received representations from Le Conseil Attikamek-Montagnais, a large delegation, and also from the Confederation of Indians of Quebec. I have no intention of going through the entire testimony, but once again, Mr. Speaker, numerous examples were given of possible rights as well as definite rights existing in the area and the unilateral action of extinguishing these rights without some means of protection, as exemplified by this motion before the House of Commons.
On Thursday, March 3, 1977, the Abitibi Dominion Band Council appeared before the standing committee and made a strong presentation in regard to the rights they had in the area which was being unilaterally extinguished. I have no intention of getting into the rather extensive legal arguments which took place throughout the standing committee hearings. I simply emphasize that the principal sections of the agreement, section 2.14 and 2.6, do not, in the opinion of legal counsel who appeared before the standing committee, indicate that there is any legal guarantee. Indeed, one of the senior officials of the Department of Justice appeared before one of the last meetings of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, at which this question was asked of him:
If you were legal counsel for those third parties and non-signatories to the agreement, from your interpretation of the bill and of the agreement, what legal means have you at your disposal to protect the rights of those individuals which are being extinguished unilaterally?
His answer was very clear: he said that there was no legal right or commitment; there was only a moral commitment. Anyone who has studied the history of Indian affairs, the history of our native people in Canada, knows perfectly well that moral commitments are very empty in many instances. I have taken a good deal of the time of the House, Mr. Speaker, and I will have more to say on other aspects of the bill at third reading stage. I close on this key issue, which was the key issue throughout the entire debate on second reading and is the key issue at report stage. It is, without question, the grossest injustice that I have seen where the government in power can

James Bay Agreement
move unilaterally to extinguish the traditional rights of individuals in that area over a period of time. This amendment does nothing more than protect individuals who have rights or may have rights. As the motion indicates, we are simply saying that we would like paragraph 3.3 to include in the territory all Indians and all Inuit entitled to be enrolled as beneficiaries
under the agreement.
What could be more just than an amendment in that context? The Grand Council of Cree and the Northern Quebec Inuit Association have agreed to the agreement that is before us, together with the other signatories. What could be more just than for the government to say, "Yes, there has been an agreement. We will protect the rights of other individuals in the future, if they have rights, so that they will not be extinguished unilaterally"? That is the intention of the motion, that was the substance of the debate and our major concern during second reading, and again throughout the many hearings of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the government cannot accept this amendment to the bill because accepting it would require that we amend the agreement, and this in turn would require us to get the consent of all the parties to the agreement. In discussing the possibility of amending the agreement to do what the hon. member has suggested, the government of Quebec has made it very clear in writing that it would not consent to such an amendment to the agreement as the extinguishment of all native rights throughout the territory was the precondition to Quebec entering into the negotiations. This is a fundamental position on which Quebec will not accede.
I might say that during the negotiations the government of Canada made suggestions that we have in the agreement proposals similar to those suggested by the hon. member, but they were not agreed to. We have gone back to them again, suggesting amendments to the agreement and they have refused to agree once more. So the government of Canada cannot accept this particular amendment without scuttling the entire agreement.


John Robert Holmes: Nonsense.


William Warren Allmand: It is not nonsense. The parties-the Cree, the Inuit, the government of Quebec and the government of Canada-made an agreement, and this bill has to put into effect the agreement as written. Accepting the amendment proposed by the hon. member would be contrary to the agreement and could only be done by getting the agreement of all the parties who agreed in the first place.
I want to make it clear that the people living outside the territory who may have claims in the territory are not completely ignored or left out, as alleged by the hon. member. In fact, the agreement has opened the door to other native people in Quebec and elsewhere who are not entitled to benefit from its provisions but who may have claims in the territory. It

assures them of the chance to obtain certain rights and benefits which otherwise they might not have.
Under paragraph 2.14 of the agreement, Quebec has undertaken a legal obligation to negotiate with other Indians and Inuit concerning any claims they may be able to establish with respect to the territory. I think I should quote that part of the agreement. Paragraph 2.14 reads:
Quebec undertakes to negotiate with other Indians or Inuit who are not entitled to participate in the compensation and benefits of the present agreement, in respect to any claims which such Indians or Inuit may have with respect to the territory.
Questions were asked in the debate on second reading and the standing committee hearings with respect to these other groups not party to the agreement whose interests in the territory will be extinguished by Bill C-9. I would like to reiterate here that in the view of the federal government paragraph 2.14, which I just read, protects these non-signatory natives who can establish valid claims to the land and to the territory. This constitutes a legal obligation which the province has stated it fully intends to honour.
The hon. member said that when the chief counsel for the government appeared before the committee, he said this was only a moral obligation. That is not correct. As a matter of fact, there was considerable debate back and forth in the committee and counsel said-I do not have the proceedings with me, but I can bring them to the debate on third reading- that he considered paragraph 2.14, since it was part of a contract in effect, as a contractual obligation and as such was a legal obligation. I want to make clear, also, that in the inaugural address, or what is the new term for the speech from the throne in Quebec, before the National Assembly of Quebec on March 8, Premier Levesque confirmed his intention under the agreement in the following statement:

We will pursue our negotiations with other Indian nations to come to satisfying agreements with them.

So in the inaugural address, or speech from the throne given recently in Quebec, the government of Quebec said that it intended to honour its commitment under paragraph 2.14 of the agreement to negotiate with other groups of Indians who may not live in the territory but who might have claims there. Quebec's participation in the negotiations with the Naskapi of Schefferville, which are now nearing completion, is a concrete example of its willingness to negotiate pursuant to paragraph 2.14.


Steve Eugene Paproski: They said the same thing about Bill 22.


William Warren Allmand: The hon. member is bringing some red herrings into the debate.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is no red herring.


William Warren Allmand: Our position on this amendment is as follows: We cannot accept an amendment of this kind without getting consent to amend the agreement, and that is not possible.
April 28, 1977

Quebec has refused to agree. If we were unilaterally to accept the amendment without the agreement of the others, this would scuttle the entire agreement.
The hon. member raised the point of one month's notice to the Naskapi before proceeding to third reading. I do not think I should deal with that point today because we are not proceeding with third reading now; we are proceeding with the report stage. If there is some disagreement on the time when we do proceed with third reading, then we could debate it at that time, but it is not certain now when we will proceed with third reading. With respect to the Naskapi, I understand they have a letter from the government of Quebec which is equivalent to an agreement in principle, but the negotiations have been continuing from day to day and I am not exactly sure what the present position is. However, I am told there is a letter which constitutes an agreement in principle.
The hon. member who just spoke mentioned, also, the Povungnituk and the other two Inuit communities in Quebec. He said we had not searched for alternatives and had done nothing to try to get their consent to the agreement. That is not correct. I, personally, went to Povungnituk and met representatives of the three communities. They made certain proposals to me and I, in turn, made those proposals to the government of Quebec. We were willing to look for some accommodation to satisfy them, but again the government of Quebec felt it could not make any amendment to the agreement so we were obliged to continue with the agreement as it was. However, we did look for alternatives, quite contrary to the allegation of the hon. member.
In referring to the Naskapi of Schefferville the hon. member alleged that they were ignored and were left out completely. That is not telling the complete story. The Naskapi of Schefferville were members of the Indian Association of Quebec at the time, and the Indian Association of Quebec was involved in the negotiations. Then that association fell apart and the Naskapi did not come forward to press the claim they are now pressing. However, they were very much aware of the claim; they just did not take the initiative at the beginning to negotiate once the Indian Association of Quebec disbanded.
The negotiations were carried on by the Cree and by the Northern Quebec Inuit Association. Once again the hon. member did not tell the complete story. At a certain point, however, the Naskapi decided to make their claim and from that point on we have been negotiating with them-and Quebec has been negotiating with them-very vigorously. As I understand it, a complete settlement is imminent. I think that is all I have to say on this particular amendment.


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak for only a few minutes with reference to the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes). I must say at the outset that I was astounded at the statement of the minister a few minutes ago, if in fact I heard him correctly. The minister agreed to a one-month period at the first meeting of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs
James Bay Agreement
and Northern Development dealing with the James Bay agreement. The minister gave a commitment at that time. That commitment has been quoted and read into the record today, but the minister now indicates that now the one-month period may be a subject for debate. Perhaps I misinterpreted the minister.


William Warren Allmand: You did.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Well, I am very pleased. In other words, I assume that in making his statement the minister gave this House the guarantee that that commitment of a one-month period from the introduction of this stage to third reading would be honoured. Before addressing myself to this motion, I wonder if I could receive a response from the minister on that point.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the minister prepared to answer the question of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco)?


William Warren Allmand: Yes, Mr. Speaker. No matter how the House interprets my remarks with respect to the one-month notice, the question is not at issue right now because we are not proceeding with third reading at this time. We have not decided when we will proceed with third reading. When the time comes that we do proceed with third reading, if hon. members think we are in violation of any agreement I have made they can raise the matter then. But we have not decided when to proceed.


Robert Hylton Brisco: I thought I heard in fact what I did hear, that there is an element of doubt that there could possibly be debate. All I ask for is a simple assurance. I see no reason why that assurance cannot be given now. The fact that the minister makes reference to the possibility of debating that point-


William Warren Allmand: You would be the one who would question when we proceed, not us.


Robert Hylton Brisco: I certainly would. I would be prepared to question it at that time, as I question it now. In any event, it may well be that hon. members on this side will have an opportunity to question the minister with reference to his intention on this point.
Probably the most interesting, challenging and informative exercise for hon. members to be involved in with the native peoples, particularly the native peoples of Quebec, came about as a result of the introduction of Bill C-9 and, of course, the James Bay agreement. As the hon. member for Lambton-Kent has said, the committee received delegations from a wide cross-section of native peoples. The hearings were very protracted. Indeed, on several occasions they were prolonged because testimony was given in the Inuit or Cree language and subsequently translated into the two official languages. Questions were addressed to the Cree and the Inuit, and they had to be translated into their native tongue.
If there was one thing that struck home throughout those hearings, it was the very true feeling these native peoples-the

April 28, 1977
James Bay Agreement
Cree, the Inuit, the Montagnais, the Naskapi and others- have for the land which they occupy, the land which they traditionally served long before the arrival of the white man. I think it was possible for some members to grasp for a moment the sense of living with nature-a communion with nature- which native peoples now rarely have the opportunity to experience, if they ever do, or if indeed they ever realize that that communion does exist.
One of the most interesting observations which could be made from those hearings was that in spite of the fact that the committee was dealing with Montagnais, Naskapi, Cree, Inuit and others, when it came to the fact that one band or another might be in what we would consider to be conflict over the same basic territorial rights, there was no conflict. Accommodations could be made whereby two or three different bands could agree to trap the same basic areas, to fish the same waters or to hunt the same territories. I think it is significant that the only time these native peoples expressed concern about the loss of their traditional rights was when non-native peoples became actively involved with the utilization or overutilization of their traditional areas.
Relatively few people have had the opportunity to fly over the areas of northern Quebec which are occupied by these people, particularly the Cree. When landing on a remote river or on a small, remote lake, it is interesting to find that they are not really remote, that the shore selected for a campground has for centuries served as a campground, and that the trail selected is a trail which has for centuries been shared by animals and by the Cree.
The members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry who directed their attention to the leghold trap and the whole question of trapping learned much from listening to the Cree who for centuries have been trappers and have lived off the land. Throughout the hearings of the standing committee on Bill C-9 committee members consistently heard expressions of concern for the rights of third party signatories, and I find it difficult to understand why government members of the committee did not seem to heed such concerns. They had no conception of the problem. I suggest they were not as sympathetic as we were to the concerns of third party signatories. Or, if they perceived the problem at hand and were concerned, they did not appear to address their attention to such matters.
I find that most unfortunate because it was a reflection on the ministry and a reflection on how the government, not parliament, views the concerns of Canada's native peoples. For that reason alone I was more than surprised to note that some government members on the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development were not as concerned as we were about the questions before the committee.
The minister has suggested that an option is open for the non-signatories, that is, for the third parties. He has suggested that Quebec entered into an agreement whereby the people concerned may negotiate claims to territories outlined in the agreement, territories in which they as Indian or Inuit people

may have an interest. The operative words are "in which they may have some interest." I find the use of the word "may ominous for it puts the whole issue in doubt.
I am surprised to note that the government has failed to convince the new government of Quebec to implement the sort of provisions which would flow from acceptance of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent. I wonder how effectively the minister addressed himself to that issue, or how assiduously the ministry worked on this question.
I find it difficult to understand why the federal government has not been able to resolve this issue, why it did not discuss with the former Liberal government of Quebec questions of genuine concern relating to the extinction of native rights. I find it strange that this has not happened. I do not find it strange that the government may have some difficulty in this respect at present. However, I am surprised that there has not been a greater measure of response with regard to these questions from those now charged with the control of the affairs of Quebec and, indeed, perhaps the destiny of this country.
The question arose in the committee hearings as to how effective is the moccasin telegraph. It became clear that third party individuals, third party non-signatories who frequently testified before the committee, did not know whom to approach, to whom they should talk, if they should approach the department or if the department was supposed to approach them. Some of the native peoples in Canada have developed a certain expertise in approaching the government. But that expertise is not available to people like the Montagnais who live in the mountains and hills of Labrador, far removed from contact with non-natives and whites.
To our great interest we learned from one of the first groups to appear before us-they were native people from the northern part of Quebec-that when they first traded with the white man it was not with the federal government and not with the government of the province of Quebec. Their first contact with the white man was with the Hudson's Bay Company. Their conception of the Hudson's Bay Company was interesting. Of course, it was in the best interests of that company of northwestern adventurers to provide for the needs of the native peoples. Whether it was in the company's best interest or not, the fact remains that it accepted a degree of responsibility for the Inuit people which had never been demonstrated by the federal government.
Widows and children were given food and clothing by the company and provided with regular rations. The company allowed nobody to starve, and nobody was turned away. This exercise cost the Hudson's Bay Company a great deal of money. It was suggested that perhaps we ought to operate under some kind of sharing commitment. Really, I am relating the story to you, Mr. Speaker, just as it was related to the standing committee.
The Hudson's Bay Company approached the federal government and said, "Although we do not mind fulfilling this particular responsibility, we would appreciate a little help." But the federal government, in its wisdom and charity, said,
April 28, 1977

"No, do it yourself." Hoping for a more positive response from the province of Quebec, the Hudson's Bay Company approached that provincial government and made the same request. The province of Quebec, again demonstrating its idea of charity, said "No." The Hudson's Bay Company was forced to carry the can. Eventually the federal government and the provincial government agreed to accept responsibility in this regard.
Let me note one thing for the record. I want to mention the work of a man who has lately changed the political climate of this country a great deal. I am not one of his supporters. Let me tell the House who told tjie Inuit and native people of the province of Quebec, the people who live along James Bay, Ungava Bay, Hudson Bay and the eastern Arctic that they were citizens of the province of Quebec. They first learned in the 1950s they were citizens of the province when a certain gentleman travelled through their communities and told them so. Mr. Speaker, interestingly enough, the man who told them was none other than Rene Levesque.
I would say he probably demonstrated at that time a greater measure of understanding for the native peoples than he appears to be demonstrating today by refusing to negotiate this one basic clause that provides for some traditional democracy. Does no one think it strange that in 1977-not 1877 or 1795-in this so-called enlightened era of Canadian democracy that we are listening to a government fully prepared to move ahead in this fashion with our native peoples, when at this very time the native peoples of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories are concerned about their traditional native rights?
I wonder how this action of the government is going to affect their thinking and their actions at the bargaining table. What kind of a bargain do they hope to strike? To me and, I am sure, to many Canadians, the word "extinguishment" is abhorrent. I would have thought that even though "a rose by any other name", this government would have demonstrated a greater sense of responsibility and sensitivity and would have used another word that was not as damning and final.
I want it clearly on the record that, without equivocation, I fully support motion No. 2 presented today by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words in support of motion No. 2 proposed by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes) because, in the course of this debate which has been going on for a few years now, I have noticed that there has been some attempt to restrict the number of people, like the Crees or the Inuit, who are concerned by the agreement referred to in Bill C-9.
The amendment suggested in motion No. 2 that we are now studying says, and I quote:
"Territory, of all Indians and all Inuit entitled to be enrolled as beneficiaries under the agreement, where"
James Bay Agreement
This means that not only one group, but everyone will be entitled to benefit from the agreement. This is still rather vague in my mind. In all that has been written, in all the debates that have been held during committee meetings, in the information exchanges, in the recommendations and interventions made by interested groups, certain people have always been forgotten. Very recently, it was not certain whether all the Inuit of Sugluk, Povungnituk and Ivujivik were in favour of the agreement. Some that could be called the third parties were also forgotten, certain Algonquins, for instance, living outside the immediate territory contiguous to the territory mentioned by the agreement, that is the territories reserved for certain communities inhabited by Cree Indians or Inuit, but the authorities forgot that there were Indian bands in other areas also, for instance, at Simon Lake, Indians established at Senneterre, Louvicourt, Val-d'Or, Chapais, Chibougamau, Val-Paradis and Amos. There are also the Montagnais Indians, the Naskapis of Schefferville. Moreover, there are nomad Indians who are not included in the agreement but who also have rights to these territories because they travel to fish or trap to earn a living.
Mr. Speaker, these people have been forgotten in Bill C-9, and as I understand it, the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent aims at giving them back their rights. I have received a letter from Mr. J. P. Fournier, Executive Director, who writes the following on behalf of the Department of Indian Affairs:
Following a meeting with representatives of the ITN on January 14, 1977, the Minister of Indian Affairs told them that he could not agree to their request to amend the agreement and Bill C-9. The hon. W. Allmand explained that, as a clear majority of the Inuit of New Quebec had voted for the agreement-
A clear majority does not mean unanimity, far from it-
-the federal government had to proceed with Bill C-9, which will bring the agreement into effect, according to the wishes of the majority. He added however that once the agreement is implemented, he will be prepared to discuss with the Quebec government and the NQIA arrangements which could meet the needs of these communities.
That is the danger, Mr. Speaker, to discuss the arrangements after the fact, when the agreement will be implemented. In my opinion, this is like not discussing them at all, since it will be impossible to do anything. It would therefore have been better to hold discussions before signing this agreement. It would have been better to get as many concessions as possible before passing Bill C-9 because afterwards, forget it. It will be too late. They will probably say in a few years that once more Palefaces with forked tongues have hoodwinked the Indians. I believe that that is what we are doing at this very moment.
That reminds me, Mr. Speaker, of the argument that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand) has just presented to the effect that the Quebec government is absolutely opposed to the fact that the federal government accepts amendments to Bill C-9. To my mind, this is absolutely outrageous. We cannot accept this kind of blackmail and I urge the minister to think out each proposed amendment. He will have ample time to do so during the dinner break and to change his mind and accept the amendment which I think is most logical.
5094

April 28, 1977
James Bay Agreement
Anyway, one of the spokesmen for the current Quebec administration, the hon. Jacques-Yvan Morin, who is now considered the deputy premier of Quebec, said before his party's coming to power, when they were the official opposition in Quebec City, that he recognized the rights of a third party to this agreement and that he would defend these rights to the last. Now that his party is in power in Quebec, I hope they will feel the same way towards Indians and Inuit, especially towards the third party members who have rights to these territories, especially with regard to fishing and trapping.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the minister should think over this amendment during the dinner hour in order to do justice to all Inuit, as stipulated in the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my understanding there is agreement to defer this vote until next week.


Ralph Goodale: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there have been the usual discussions and there is an understanding that the vote on this motion, and probably any other votes which may be required to dispense with these items, will be deferred until later next week.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Accordingly, the recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The next motion is No. 3, in the name of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand).


William Warren Allmand: Motion No. 3.
That Bill C-9, an act to approve, give effect to and declare valid certain agreements between the Grand Council of the Crees (of Quebec), the Northern Quebec Inuit Association, the Government of Quebec, la Soci6t6 d'energie de la Baie James, la Soci6t6 de developpement de la Baie James, la Commission hydro-dectrique de Quebec and the Government of Canada and certain other related agreements to which the Government of Canada is a party, be amended in clause 3, by adding immediately after line 4 at page 3, the following new subclause:

"(6) Any sum of money payable by the Government of Canada under
section 25 of the Agreement shall, in the event of default in making payment,
bear interest from the date of such default at the legal rate of interest."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment was requested by the Northern Quebec Inuit Association. It obliges the government to pay interest on any sum of money that they may owe under the agreement if they are in default of making the payments on time. This was agreed to by the Cree and the other parties, and we propose it to the House now.


John Robert Holmes: We certainly accept this amendment. It is one of the amendments discussed in some detail at committee level. We endorsed it and we see no difficulty with it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On behalf of my hon. friend from the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) who is out of the House for a few minutes, I should like to say that we agree to this amendment.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I have noted that two similar amendments were introduced. Therefore I have no objection. I believe it is satisfactory.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my understanding that motions Nos. 4 and 5 will be debated together, on the suggestion of Mr. Speaker. A vote on motion No. 4 would also dispose of motion No. 5.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw) moved:: Motion No. 4.
That Bill C-9, an act to approve, give effect to and declare valid certain agreements between the Grand Council of the Crees (of Quebec), the Northern Quebec Inuit Association, the Government of Quebec, la Soci6te d'6nergie de la Baie James, la Soci6te de developpement de la Baie James, la Commission hydro-61ectrique de Quebec and the Government of Canada and certain other related agreements to which the Government of Canada is a party, be amended in clause 5, by striking out ljnes 37 to 46 at page 4 and renumbering the subsequent subclauses accordingly.
Motion No. 5.
That Bill C-9, an act to approve, give effect to and declare valid certain agreements between the Grand Council of the Crees (of Quebec), the Northern Quebec Inuit Association, the Government of Quebec, la Societe d'6nergie de la Baie James, la Soci6t6 de developpement de la Baie James, la Commission hydro-61ectrique de Quebec and the Government of Canada and certain other related agreements to which the Government of Canada is a party, be amended in clause 5, by striking out lines 10 to 19 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"motion that is the subject of the request".
He said: I see, Mr. Speaker, that it is approaching five o'clock, but I should like to make one or two brief comments. The bill as submitted to the House for first reading and as submitted to the committee provided for a limitation of five hours of debate with respect to any supplementary agreement which might be entered into under the general James Bay agreement. Frankly, we were amazed and concerned that this particular restriction should have appeared in the bill. In effect, it was closure. The party to which I belong is not in favour of closure at any time; it is a restriction on the right of members to speak.
April 28, 1977

In this case the limitation applied to debate on supplementary agreements entered into by native groups settling their claims. We spoke against it in committee. The parliamentary secretary felt that in the case of some of these agreements, or supplementary agreements, a time factor might be involved. We felt that any agreement affecting land claims might be important enough to require more than five hours of debate, though we took the view that in most cases an agreement would not require any debate at all. We were quite pleased, therefore, when the minister indicated some time ago, and again in the House today, that he was prepared to accept these motions.


William Warren Allmand: On reconsideration, Mr. Speaker, we think the arguments put forward by the hon. member are sound, and we agree to his amendments.
Motions Nos. 4 and 5 agreed to.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Five o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn)-Public Service-Allegation wage settlements made above guidelines; the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway-Health-Possibility of banning products in addition to saccharin that may be dangerous to health; the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants-Income Tax-Exemptions for maintenance orders- Discrimination against those made for common law spouses.
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 motion (papers) and private bills.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I think it might expedite matters if 1 indicated there is general agreement to take notice of motion No. 47, standing in the name of the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed, by unanimous consent, that we stand, at the request of the government, motions Nos. 1, 14, 35, 8, 23 and 2 and proceed immediately to the consideration of motion No. 47 appearing in the name of the hon. member of South Shore (Mr. Crouse)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Fisheries


PRIVATE MEMBERS' NOTICES FOR PAPERS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore) moved:: That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all documents, minutes of meetings, telegrams, etc., relating to the discussions between the government and the governments of the United States, France and Denmark with regard to the proposed 200-mile limit.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on motion No. 47 which asks that copies of all documents, minutes of meetings, telegrams, etc., relating to the discussions between the government and the government of the United States, France and Denmark with regard to the proposed 200-mile limit be laid before this House.
At the present time there is much concern in the minds of Canadian inshore and offshore fishermen, as well as Canadian plant owners and shore workers, over what the future holds for them in the fishing industry. This concern is, of course, justified because decisions are being made on their behalf by so-called unknown experts at Ottawa without benefit of discussion, consultation or debate in the House of Commons on matters which will have a direct bearing on the future of thousands of Canadians in Atlantic Canada and on the west coast.
We have been told, for example, in response to questions which I put to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson), that discussions have been held with American officials, with French and Danish officials over fishing rights and quotas and mineral rights in the disputed areas such as Georges Bank off Nova Scotia, the fishing grounds around St. Pierre and Miquelon, the French fishing rights in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and fishing rights as they exist in the Davis Strait between Greenland and Canada.
I understand that Alan Beesley of the Department of External Affairs has said that negotiations with the United States on Georges Bank have been at a standstill. It has been seven months-from last September-since Canadian and American negotiators met to discuss boundaries. No further meetings have been held, which causes me to ask: What is the problem? On an issue of such crucial importance to the Canadian fishery, one has to ask: Why have there been such lengthy delays? No wonder there has not been any progress in settling the various boundary disputes with the United States.
Our fisheries negotiators have only been able to work out an interim agreement with the United States. Interim agreements are often less than satisfactory because no long-range planning can be done with any confidence. Our Fisheries negotiators are ready to begin talks with their American counterparts on a long-term fishing agreement, but so far they have only been standing by, waiting for a boundary agreement to be reached.
It should be noted that the interim agreement which was reached and was triumphantly announced by this government
80012-44>/2

April 28, 1977
Fisheries
has not as yet been ratified by the United States Congress. It has been bogged down in the United States Senate, although hearings will soon begin. Since we are not as yet assured that this interim agreement will be enacted, I would call the government's announcement a very hollow triumph. I submit that the Canadian people, especially those involved in the fishing industry, have a right to know what is being discussed. They have a right to know what the bones of contention are and what is being bartered away by our so-called government experts behind closed doors.
Our people in Atlantic Canada are not only concerned about the outcome of the discussions between the Canadian government and the three countries which are the subject of this motion. They are also vitally concerned over the manner in which this government proposes to manage the fishery resources within the 200-mile limit unilaterally declared on January 1, 1977.
Our chief negotiator at the law of the sea conference, Mr. Beesley, told me that for 1977 the system used by ICNAF, the International Commission for North Atlantic Fisheries, has now been integrated into our domestic management process. In light of ICNAF's failure over the years properly to manage our fish stocks, some of which have been fished below the sustainable yield level, Mr. Beesley's statement raises more questions in my mind than answers. I can appreciate what our negotiators are trying to accomplish at the law of the sea conference, but I ask: What are the tangible benefits for the fishermen of Atlantic Canada? Is it not true that our inshore and offshore fishermen are now on the short end of the stick because of Canada's conciliatory approach at the law of the sea conference and in the more specific application of its principles by the so-called fishery management experts in Ottawa?
I still have grave doubts about the importance which the Trudeau government attaches to the east coast fisheries, and even graver doubts about its ability to measure the importance of our fishery when considering all of the so-called national interests to be dealt with by the law of the sea conference. During the past year two new factors have complicated discussions about the 200-mile limit and its importance to our fisheries, namely, bilateral fishing agreements and joint ventures. Canada was very polite and diplomatic when she declared her 200-mile zone unilaterally. In order to make the limit more acceptable to foreign fishing fleets, she decided to make certain concessions called bilateral fishing agreements.
These concessions were made separately between Canada and each of the foreign fishing nations formerly fishing in our waters. They were concessions which were never discussed and approved by our Canadian fishermen or their representatives in their various fishing associations. These concessions give countries like Poland, Russia or West Germany the right to harvest surplus fish stocks. In other words, Canada decides what total allowable catches should be, figures out what our harvesting capacity is and then gives away the difference.
The bilateral agreements do not specify the exact amount of fish we will concede. The unwritten understanding is that the

Russians, the Poles, the Cubans, the West Germans, the Portuguese and the Spanish will get enough to keep them happy. However, our inshore and our offshore fishermen are asking: Where is this resource surplus everyone is talking about, especially government supporters? In answer to this question, fishery experts offer some complex biological information, but in words that everyone can understand there is no oversupply but there is a critical shortage. To most of us, including the average fisherman, the word "surplus" suggests an overabundance or an excess supply of fish. It implies that there is enough fish to go around for every man or every woman to make a decent living, with some left over. The most important meaning of "surplus" relates to its application in the management of our new 200-mile limit.
Article 50 of the draft law of the sea which Canada is now using to manage her 200-mile economic zone broadly defines "surplus" as the difference between the estimated total allowable catch, or TAC which is used for short, and Canada's ability to catch that amount of fish. The catching capacity for Canada is the quantity of fish she can catch using all vessels, inshore as well as offshore.
This brings to my mind a formula which goes something like this: total allowable catch, minus Canada's catching capacity, equals what our government experts call "surplus". The surplus defined by this formula must be given, under the law of the sea principles, to any foreign nation operating in Canada's coastal waters. However, Canada can still impose certain terms and conditions as to the method used to harvest this surplus. The real secret of this equation lies not in the definition of surplus but, rather, in how we calculate the TAC, or the total allowable catch.
The way this figure is calculated has important implications for our east coast fishermen. This calls for an equation which starts with maximum sustainable yield, minus stock replenishment factor, minus inshore community factor, which equals the total allowable catch.
The maximum sustainable yield is the quantity of fish caught which will allow the stock to reproduce itself naturally. The stock replenishment factor is a quantity of fish which is set aside to allow the stock to rebuild itself more rapidly. This is only a temporary measure because in the past stocks may have been overfished. The inshore community factor is a quantity of fish set aside to protect the social and economic viability of coastal fishing communities. This last factor is perhaps the most important. If we do not understand what it implies, then we cannot create a development policy for our inshore fishermen.
Article 50(3) of the law of the sea proposals allows Canada to set aside a certain quantity of fish which will provide for the maintenance and development of an inshore fishery. It grants us the right to take special care that fishing effort offshore does not destroy the economic base of inshore communities which depend upon the same resource for survival. Unfortu-
April 28, 1977

nately, 1977 has become a year of transition; it has also become a year of confusion.
Since 1973 the International Commission for the North Atlantic Fishery, ICNAF, has been setting limits for quotas on the amount of fish caught in the northwest Atlantic. This came about because these waters had been overfished or overexploited during the preceding 10 or 12 years. But essentially the ICNAF quotas have been set through a process of back-scratching, or horse-trading, an international political exercise which has meant quotas have been set too high. This happened because the quotas were set on the basis of historical catch records and not on scientific, biological information.
For example, Mr. Speaker, the Russians, to name but one nation, have been catching a tremendous amount of fish each year since the late 1950s. At the yearly ICNAF meetings they have therefore argued that the next year's quota should be based on their previous performance, without any regard for its effects on the total fish stocks in our waters. In other words, the word "surplus" now takes on a new meaning which, under present fisheries management plans, means the "allowable foreign catch", which is not good enough to satisfy the needs of Canadian fishermen.
Joint ventures are yet another kettle of fish in the present mess. These arrangements, made so far only with West Germany, do not relate to the surplus I have been describing but, rather, relate to an uncaught portion of the Canadian quota. For example, in 1976 the Canadian offshore cod quota on the Hamilton Bank was about 20,000 metric tons. However, our draggers only managed to catch about 3,000 metric tons. This year the province of Newfoundland arranged for West German boats to catch some 6,000 tons of the 1977 Canadian offshore quota and to land the fish in Newfoundland ports, an arrangement which will create some jobs within the provincial processing industry. However, both bilateral agreements and joint venture arrangements merely complicate an already confused fisheries development policy.
I say this, Mr. Speaker, because shortly after the joint venture system was announced it began to develop its own set of complications. Here I refer to the fact that processors and fishing interests in my native province of Nova Scotia wanted to establish their own joint venture plan with West German interests, but this request was denied. All of these moves and countermoves have reduced our ability to consider more simple, short-term solutions to the present resource problem.
Looking ahead to 1978, we have the power to make small changes, but they are changes that will bring significant benefits to our fishermen. The 200-mile limit presents us in Atlantic Canada with a golden opportunity, but we have a tendency to look ahead with a 10-year vision and not to look with vision to the immediate needs of our people, to their needs this month, next month and throughout 1977. In any case,
1976	ICNAF quota negotiations did not set a limit on the
1977	inshore quota. Instead, they estimated that the inshore catch would be around 50,000 metric tons. However, the actual catch in 1976 was 53,000 metric tons. If a number of conditions are right this summer, the inshore catch, for exam-
Fisheries
pie, in ICNAF zones 2J and 3KL could go as high as 75,000 to 80,000 tons.
I submit that the federal government would not take any action to prevent inshore Fishermen from fishing beyond their estimated 50,000 tons, for to do so would be political suicide. This combination of factors could make the 1977 inshore cod fishery the most exciting in years. Nobody planned it as such, but now the inshore fleet has an opportunity to demonstrate its efficiency and the desirability of having a higher stock level at the end of the spring offshore fishery.
If the 1977 fishery becomes a success, what short-term measures can we take to ensure an even better one for 1978? In my opinion, the problem at present is that discussions on the 1978 quotas are taking place at this very moment while I am speaking in the House. These meetings could well decide the fate of the 1978 fishery before important information is available about the 1977 inshore catch. In other words, the danger exists that once again in 1978 there will be a surplus declared on the Hamilton Bank cod stocks, and consequently foreign fleets will once more have a right to harvest these fish. I submit that that would be a disaster for our Canadian Fishermen.
The most important fisheries problem facing this government at present is the question of the 1978 quotas. Quotas for our inshore fishermen, and especially those on the northeast and Labrador coasts, should not be allocated at least until September when some of the effect of this year's effort is known. If the inshore catch increases, the government could quite correctly increase 1978's inshore fishing quota, and by doing so further reduce foreign offshore fishing on the offshore banks, especially on Hamilton Bank. This will mean increased earnings for Canadians and increased social benefits in our fishing communities.
We in Canada seem reluctant to make relatively simple decisions because the whole policy-making process within the fisheries department is carried out in secrecy. Next to the budget, proposed quotas are the best kept secret in government. There has never been any public debate on this issue. Nor has any significant amount of information been made available by government, which is the reason for this motion today. Consequently, we go on pretending that this complex task is rightly the business of a host of experts in Ottawa.
Meanwhile, the United States encourages public participation in setting quotas through its regional advisory councils, and even gives these groups the right to veto quotas which are set by experts. I ask, why cannot we do the same thing in Canada? Decisions about quotas, limits and fisheries development should become a matter of public debate, in my opinion, in Atlantic Canada, with input from fishermen, from the trade and from the general public affected by the rulings made by these mystery men in Ottawa.
A major focus in this debate should be on the balance between inshore and offshore effort, and on which development strategy provides the maximum social and economic benefits to those associated with the fisheries in Atlantic Canada. We should openly discuss these issues and not merely

April 28, 1977
Fisheries
turn them over to a battery of so-called experts in Ottawa for further study. The trouble with this government-perhaps I should say, one of the many troubles with this government-is that they automatically reject the idea of participation in policy-making. Perhaps the problem of a simple reappraisal of our inshore and offshore harvesting capacity is not expensive, exciting or large-scale enough to satisfy government planners. In the words of one fisherman who spoke to me about it, "Lloyd, let's face it; the fishing industry and its problems really don't have much sex appeal". Perhaps that describes the situation generally in the terminology of today. I submit that this action is necessary if our fisheries management policy is to be effective and if it is to bring long-term economic and social benefits to the majority of our people.
All I am asking is that this government lift the veil of secrecy with which it presently cloaks its activities. Let the light of discussion and consultation replace the darkness of secrecy and confrontation. Denial of my request for information will once again show the need for an effective freedom of information act. The public, especially members of the House, have a right to know what the government is doing and how it is doing it. As the cloak of secrecy which the government throws around its operations grows, so does public mistrust of this government. I find that mistrust of this government by the Canadian people is at an all-time high. I submit that this trend must be reversed, for the benefit of Canada. The releasing of documents which I have requested in this motion today would be a step in the right direction.


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the question which has been asked in the House regarding communications and discussions between Canada and other countries in connection with the 200-mile fishing limit deserves some comment. It also deserves a review concerning the role these communications and discussions have played in the process of extending our jurisdiction. I would like to deal with that in the knowledge that my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Leblanc) will be dealing particularly with the problems of producing these papers later this day.
The 200-mile fishing zone established by Canada on January 1, 1977, represents one of the outstanding achievements of Canadian diplomacy and is the fruit of years of effort. The very success of this operation, however, may obscure both its importance and the difficulties that had to be overcome along the way. In this quiet and orderly assumption of management authority over 630,000 square miles of high seas, Canada has set a model for the world and especially for other coastal states. Canada has done more than perhaps any other country to transform the 200-mile limit from a highly controversial, hotly disputed proposition favoured by a small minority of states to an established fact of life and law accepted by all, whether explicitly or implicitly.

The accomplishment is all the more remarkable in that Canada had one of the greatest concentrations of foreign fishing fleets in the world off its coasts, operated in some cases by the most powerful countries in the world, and in all cases by countries determined to resist any take-over of the high seas and any encroachment on the freedom of fishing recognized by international law for so many centuries. To achieve this objective Canada has had to take many initiatives in terms of our multilateral and bilateral international relations.
Multilaterally, Canada was one of the handful of countries chiefly responsible for bringing about a consensus on the 200-mile fisheries limit at the UN law of the sea conference which has helped to transform customary international law and to make it possible for countries like Canada to adopt the 200-mile limit without provoking chaos or conflict. One of the most basic elements of this consensus is the principle of optimum utilization which simply means that coastal states will not allow fish stocks under their jurisdiction to die of old age and go to waste but, rather, will allow other countries access to such portions of the stocks as may be surplus to the coastal state's harvesting capacity as determined by the coastal state. This has proved to be the keystone in the process of achieving international acceptance of the 200-mile fishing limit.
While working to advance Canadian fisheries interests at the law of the sea conference, Canada was also pursuing regional initiatives to this same end, in particular through the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries-ICNAF. Beginning in 1972 we obtained in ICNAF steadily growing recognition of the coastal state's preferential rights in the harvest of fishery resources off its shores. In 1975 we obtained in ICNAF, for 1976, a 40 per cent reduction in foreign fishing effort for groundfish, as well as a reduction in the total allowable catches-TACs-for depleted stocks, and higher quotas for Canadian fishermen on stocks of particular importance to them. In 1976 we obtained in ICNAF, for 1977, the further reduction in TACs we considered necessary, together with estimated allocation in TACs we considered necessary, together with estimated allocations for Canadian fishermen generally corresponding to their harvesting capacity. In effect, this amounted to recognition of extended Canadian fisheries jurisdiction even before that extension had taken place.
Nor is this all. In the closing weeks of 1976 Canada achieved another historic first by securing agreement on amendments to the ICNAF convention that restrict the commission's management authority to the area beyond national fisheries limits and leaves management within 200 miles to the authority of the coastal state, while also leaving Canada with the right to board and inspect foreign vessels beyond the 200-mile limit under the ICNAF scheme of joint international enforcement.
No other international commission has yet adapted itself in this way to extended fisheries jurisdiction, although at least one other is beginning to follow suit, using the Canadian approach as both model and precedent. Together with these
April 28, 1977

Canadian amendments, ICNAF also adopted a Canadian-sponsored resolution calling for the establishment of new arrangements for multilateral co-operation with regard to the northwest Atlantic fisheries, in keeping with the new jurisdictional realities. A preparatory conference has been held in Ottawa to prepare for a diplomatic conference for this purpose in 1977. It is imperative that we work out such arrangements for the protection of important Canadian fisheries in the area immediately beyond the 200-mile limit.
The multilateral and regional initiatives which I have noted were also complemented by a series of bilateral initiatives. In 1975 we began negotiations with five countries responsible for some 90 per cent of the foreign catch off our coasts-Norway, Poland, the U.S.S.R., Portugal and Spain. In less than a year we had concluded bilateral agreements with all of them. More recently we also worked out a practical arrangement with Japan, for 1977, having much the same effect as the formal agreements in terms of control and licensing.
These bilateral agreements were the first ever to anticipate extension of fisheries jurisdiction by a coastal state and to be based on the consensus reached at the law of the sea conference, including the consensus on optimum utilization. As early as 1972 Canada had also incorporated certain provisions in anticipation of extension of jurisdiction in a bilateral agreement with France. The agreement with the U.S.S.R. was the first in which that country undertook to recognize and comply with a coastal state's jurisdiction in the 200-mile zone. It is surely a unique tribute to these Canadian agreements that they have been widely used as models in bilateral negotiations by other countries, both coastal states and distant-water fishing states.
To bring the picture up to date, I would add that on February 24, 1977, a reciprocal fisheries agreement was negotiated with the U.S.A. to provide for the continuation of existing fisheries by fishermen of each country off the coast of the other while we proceed with negotiations aimed at establishing boundaries between the fishing zones of the two countries and long-term reciprocal fishing relations.
Canada's approach to extended jurisdiction was the right one and the practical one, for a number of reasons. We have other vital objectives yet to secure at the law of the sea conference in the field of fisheries and in other fields as well. We have, for example, negotiated a draft provision for the proposed new law of the sea convention that would assure the protection of salmon of Canadian origin during those periods when they migrate outside our 200-mile zone. We have negotiated a draft provision recognizing our sovereign rights over continental shelf resources beyond 200 miles to the outer edge of the continental margin. We have negotiated a draft provision recognizing our right to impose the most stringent rules and standards for the prevention of pollution from ships in our Arctic waters. Our process of consultation and discussion with other countries to achieve our fisheries objectives has avoided jeopardizing these achievements as we move closer to a new law of the sea convention.
There is still another important reason why Canada's approach has been the appropriate one. The 200-mile limit on
Fisheries
the Atlantic coast does not enclose all of our continental shelf fish stocks but leaves some 10 per cent of them outside our jurisdiction, including some stocks of particular importance to Canadian fishermen. It is, accordingly, essential that we have the co-operation of other countries to ensure the proper conservation and management of these outside stocks and appropriate allocations for Canadian fishermen. Our approach to extended jurisdiction has secured us that co-operation so far. As I have already indicated, we will now be seeking to ensure such co-operation in future through the negotiation of a new convention to replace ICNAF. Among the most important tasks yet to be completed are marine boundary negotiations to be pursued with Denmark, France and the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I have reviewed in some detail our international relations over the last few years in connection with the extension of Canadian fisheries jurisdiction to 200 miles.
Though the question which gave rise to this review related only to the U.S.A., France and Denmark, it is important to note that discussions and communications with all three have spanned the areas I have reviewed: our multinational, regional, and bilateral involvements. Though the discussions and communications cannot be made public, for obvious reasons which will be pointed out in a few moments by my colleague, I have recounted for the House the story they tell, apart from the question of boundary negotiations which are still in process.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, while in an elementary way the remarks of the previous speaker are quite correct, in an historical way all the moves which have been described are those which have been taken to correct a wrong which resulted from a lack of knowledge, and from a very poor planning structure as it related to government planning for fishing. To some degree all of the conflict in respect of how much fish should be caught and how much fish could be caught, initially arose from a statement made by an official of the Department of Fisheries which indicated-this was approximately ten years ago or perhaps a little more- that the amount of herring, for instance, in the Atlantic Ocean was beyond the catching capability of anybody, including the Russians, and therefore that there should be an open fishing policy for herring in the Atlantic Ocean. This really resulted in an infusion of new catching capability from foreign countries which had never before been present in this fishing operation.
It was not because of good planning that we have now exercised control of the 200 mile limit; it was because of shortsightedness and poor planning, and any credit which the government may wish to cuddle to its arms today as a result of those efforts to correct its errors of the past certainly is of minimal importance to the fishermen who can no longer depend upon the sea as a source of proper livelihood as they could in days gone by. So let there be no confusion as to why we have a 200 mile limit. It was clearly lack of knowledge and lack of attachment of importance to the fishing industry which put us in the position whereby the Government of Canada had no choice, if it was to have a fishing industry at all, but to coax

April 28, 1977
Fisheries
and persuade the world fishing nations that we must have a 200 mile limit and that we must now, after a period of profligate fishing at the expense of the population in the sea, have a return to a rational approach to the fishing industry.
Things were further complicated by the fact that when there were obvious marketing problems for the products of the sea, there was no impetus put into the sale of the product by the government. Instead, others expanded their fleets, improved their techniques and caught the fish while we stood idly by, until even with the capabilities we had ten years ago we no longer had an adequate stock to support either the fishing fleet or the processing industry ashore. Of course there is no question but that it is possible for a stock to get over age and to get too large in numbers and therefore, as nature sometimes balances itself in our ecological structure, there is a waste of that stock.
I noticed that when the hon. member spoke about salmon he avoided mentioning Atlantic salmon, and unless I am in error there is no protection for salmon as they leave the Atlantic coast and go beyond the 200 mile limit. This is something which has been reserved for the west coast. I would not object to an interruption if I am inaccurate, but that is my understanding of the situation as it is at the moment. I think this is an item of shameful neglect. We should attend to the salmon on both coasts of Canada, not on just one coast.
I do not believe the previous speaker had any conception of the importance of salmon fishing to local communities both on the coast and along the streams in the provinces which are favoured by the presence of Atlantic salmon. This supply has been robbed and decimated by overfishing at sea well beyond the 200 mile limit, and we still exercise little, if any control. Granted, there has been an element of negotiation in that regard, but there has been no confirmation to date-at least which the minister announced-that these salmon are now protected and that they are in fact available to the Atlantic fishery for commmercial or for sport purposes.
The problem with secrecy in the negotiations is a major one, and the request for information is an important one. I submit that it should be accepted as a necessity for future planning at both the processing and fishing levels. The guidelines which these agreements have set down are going to be the guidelines for any new purchase of equipment, for any expansion of plant, for any disposal of equipment, or for any disposal of plant. In other words this is the economic base which has now been negotiated for the industry both on the water and on the land. I submit that if this information is denied it will be a great disservice to every aspect of the fishing industry, as it tries to generate a livelihood for industries both afloat and ashore. This information is a must. The industry is now fishing and processing in ignorance of what is its long-term future. There has been virtually no open participation in respect of what the government will negotiate with regard to fisheries.
True, in the past there has been an element of consultation. The Fisheries Council has been consulted. Some fisheries organizations have been consulted. One fisherman told me that he actually went on a trip to a negotiating meeting, that he

was given a little bit of information, that a few documents were passed to him for his consideration, but that before he had time to read them they were removed from his hands. They were then put into a virtual lock-up until after the negotiations had taken place. In the meantime this fisherman had no opportunity to make constructive suggestions as to what would be in the best interests of the fishing industry. There is no meaningful consultation. I think it is imperative that this be restored. Since that fisherman was not consulted, he should at least be informed of the consequences of the negotiation in which he was unable to play any part whatsoever.
One of the problems at the present time-and again this is why we need to see this information-is that the Canadian research capability has never at any time been able to state authoritatively that there are so many tons of fish to be caught, so many haddock, halibut, cod, herring, lobsters or any other variety. It has been admitted, frankly and openly, that as far as statistics are concerned in deciding what should be the catch, they have been supplied piecemeal by various other nations which have been fishing on the spot.
We have not had a capability to determine accurately what tonnage of what species can be removed from the sea without a depletion of the stock. This is negligence of the worst kind. Since we did not have personal knowledge of what those stocks were, how could we wisely negotiate with anybody in the past as to what we should give away and what should be the allowable catch for this or any other nation? I submit that while we must trust our fellowmen and our neighbours, there is an inclination by anybody to submit statistics which would favour himself and which would increase the catch he would like to have.
What is a surplus? Is a surplus the amount we catch in one year or the amount we do not catch in one year? I submit that the answer is no. For instance, in the seining fleet in the herring industry there was a catch capability which was never properly satisfied since the imposition of quotas, and yet we negotiated the quota downward until we had to allocate individual boat quotas, and while this improved the situation for the seiner, it certainly did not exercise his capability to catch.
Having estimated capability too late, we have traded away that which we ought to have retained and we have not recovered for our own consumption anything like the stocks of fish we are capable of catching. We must therefore develop a highly sophisticated research program to enable us to estimate exactly what is in the sea. Only then can we estimate what we should allow others to catch in total, and what our fishermen should catch. We should give away only that amount which is beyond our capability to catch. The total allowable catch with regard to any species can only be considered after we have estimated what we can process and catch for ourselves.
If we are to determine quota levels by September, we must consult with fishing groups. They are on the sea and have a
April 28, 1977

pretty good idea of the size of various stocks of fish. No, they cannot tell you how many tons are out there, but they can give you a pretty good idea, a better idea I suggest than some researchers. Only by consulting such groups can we set catch levels. For instance, we must know if we are catching too many fish. Is the fish population up, or is it down? If it is down, what can we do to bring it up again? I suggest that researchers in the field of fishing rely on fishermen to confirm their findings.
My second point is that, not only must we consult participants in fishing, we must also make certain that an adequate research capability is in place. We must invite those who catch and process all kinds of fish, that is to say, people in all parts of the fishing industry, to help us in the determination of the present size of fish populations. We must know if we are depleting fish stocks. Let us consult all concerned, and let us not rely on a single source of information. That one cannot rely on a single source of information has been demonstrated to farmers who have relied on figures supplied by one source of statistics with regard to farm product stocks on hand. I suggest that it is even more difficult to estimate what is in the sea. Let us therefore use our research capabilities and the knowledge of our fishermen to determine how large are our fish stocks in the sea.
Let us put our fishermen back in business so that we may remove some of the subsidies we have been forced to put in place. We were forced to pay subsidies because fishermen were not allowed to catch enough. Let us put all these things on the table. Let those both afloat and ashore share in the making of these plans. This is imperative. Let us make sure that our trade structure is working in the markets of the world, so that we can sell in those markets those products we are capable of producing and preparing.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, I see we are discussing the notice of motion for papers and the three previous speakers have dealt at length with the substance of the motion, namely the 200-mile zone and fisheries. Mr. Speaker, concerning Standing Order 48(2), I think we should rather deal with the fact that for some reason or another, which I shall explain later, the government is unable to table the documents requested by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse), and in my opinion it is more precisely the tabling of documents which is the subject of the motion.
So, Mr. Speaker, I shall rather restrict myself to the history of the freedom of information which was instituted by the present government many years ago. We must remember, Mr. Speaker, that before 1973, there was no rule forcing the government to table documents, and that the decision remained with the minister or the Crown corporations from whom documents were requested.
But in 1973, a motion concerning the production of papers was passed in the House of Commons. 1 think it is a good thing to remind hon. members that in those guidelines for production of papers, there was in appendix "B" of Hansard for March 15, 1973 a notice of motion for the production of
Fisheries
papers and the general principle established at that time was the following, and I quote:
To enable Members of Parliament to secure factual information about the operations of government to carry out their parliamentary duties and to make public as much factual information as possible consistant with effective administration, the protection of the security of the state, righs to privacy and other such matters, government papers, documents and consultant reports should be produced on Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers unless falling within the categories outlined below in which case an exemption is to be claimed from production.
There are 16 specific exemptions concerning ministers' correspondence and of course consultant studies.
I note that the third exemption which was accepted by all the members of the House at that time reads as follows, and 1 quote:
3. Papers dealing with international relations, the release of which might be detrimental to the future conduct of Canada's foreign relations; (the release of papers received from other countries to be subject to the consent of the originating country).
So I think that the motion of the hon. member for South Shore for the production of copies of documents, minutes of meetings, telegrams and others regarding discussions between the federal government and the United States, France and Denmark in connection with the proposed 200-mile fishing zone, fall specifically under exemption No. 3 since, as an hon. member stated before me, negotiations are not yet completed. Indeed the release of these documents could have a detrimental effect on the maintenance of good relations between Canada and foreign countries. Also, cabinet documents and those which include a Privy Council confidence are exempt under exemption No. 12. A number of documents which the hon. member for South Shore referred to fall under exemption No. 12; exemption No. 16 reads, and I quote:
Papers requested, submitted or received in confidence by the government from sources outside the government.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we cannot release these documents, telegrams and other papers which are still used in negotiations, because we have not received permission from the foreign countries involved to release them. Moreover, the release of these documents could prove detrimental to the negotiations being carried out.
Mr. Speaker, since the issuing of the guidelines which were tabled in the House in March 1973 and which I have just mentioned, the government, being well aware of the problem and anxious to make government papers available to the Canadian people as a whole, and to hon. members in particular, referred the bill of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) which relates to the publication of these documents to the Joint Standing Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, and the whole substance of the problem was also referred on this occasion. I had the honour and the pleasure to sit on this committee for a few years, and we had about 25 sittings in which we discussed the possibility of making more documents available to the public and to hon. members; we even went to Washington to study the methods established in the United States for the production of documents.

April 28, 1977
Fisheries
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne of October 12, 1976, it is mentioned that the government is well aware of the problems and wishes to make public as many documents as possible. I shall quote from Part III which relates to individual rights and which is of particular interest to us this evening. We can read this in the Speech from the Throne, and I quote:
At a time of growing complexity in public affairs it is especially important to enhance the citizen's right of access to the information necessary to make well-informed judgments and take responsible action.
The Government therefore places great value on the continuing work of the joint parliamentary committee which has been studying the question of freedom of information, and plans to submit a policy paper to that committee in the hope that early agreement might be reached on the best methods to improve public access to government information. In the meantime, the Government will increase the number and range of internal documents available to the public.
That is what we have done, and especially we in the Department of External Affairs of course want to publish as many documents as possible, and we feel that the issue raised by the hon. member for South Shore is very important since it challenges the principle behind document production.
At present-
-the government will be pleased to table the arbitration award of 1903 and the treaty of 1904 between Great Britain and the United States ratifying that award. The government is also prepared to table the orders in council relating to Canadian jurisdiction over the waters inside Dixon Entrance.
We shall be pleased to table the treaty of 1825 between Great Britain and Russia, and the treaty of 1867 between Imperial Russia and the United States.

There are some, Mr. Speaker, who seem to find strange that I refer to documents published so long ago, but all those documents now bring us back to the negotiations in question about the 200-mile limit and that is why we think those documents could be important if hon. members wanted us to lay them down. Of course, we would be prepared to do so. [English]
We will be pleased to table the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf, as well as the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zones which contains a similar provision on the delimitation of the territorial sea, based on the principle of equidistance. The government is also prepared to table the judgment of the International Court of Justice in the 1969 North Sea Continental Shelf cases.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, unless I am mistaken, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) will be tabling a green paper in the near future which will deal, I believe, with the principle of production of papers by the government. We can then study the matter with the opposition and finally come to a conclusion that will be satisfactory to all hon. members as well as the public which, from time to time, needs those papers

either to do some research, or to prepare basic papers in the fields which may exist within the federal government which, as we know, are extremely vast.
I should of course be very happy to answer the hon. member for South Shore otherwise, and to supply him with the papers he wants but, at this time, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, we are willing to supply all sorts of papers, the ones I mentioned and others if need be. Still, it is now impossible for us to table the papers dealing with the negotiations with the United States, France and Denmark. It is most unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot meet the hon. member's request. Had it been possible, we should have been extremely pleased to do so.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Just prior to the private members' hour the House had completed its consideration of the report stage of Bill C-9, so we shall now move on to another order of business. Bill C-48.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration from Friday, April 22, of the motion of Mr. Marchand (for the Minister of Finance) that Bill C-48, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Small Businesses Loans Act and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to take part in the debate concerning a piece of legislation to assist the small businessman, because such legislation is far too rarely before us for consideration. Even this bill, Bill C-48, to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act, the Farm Improvement Loans Act and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act is actually an extension of legislation which first came into effect in 1961. Hon. members are aware that this legislation would expire automatically on June 30 of the current year in the absence of the amendments which are now before us. I therefore welcome
April 28, 1977

the bill and can only hope it will not take another three years before a piece of legislation dealing specifically with small business sees the light of day in this Chamber.
I mentioned the period of three years because it is at the end of three years that the act will next come up for review-the exact date is, in fact, June, 1980. Unfortunately the small business community cannot depend solely on the Small Businesses Loans Act and its triennial update. The small business community cannot, ,as it were, continue to hang in while governments in general ignore its basic needs on one hand and swamp it with bureaucratic regulations, directives, controls, forms, and general paperwork on the other. The small firms sector is what the free enterprise system in this country was built on, and if we want this system as we know it to continue to exist, much more must be done by way of the promotion and development of wide ranging programs and policies.
1 have said over and over again in this House as well as outside it that the government must commit itself to developing an over-all policy to assist the small business community in dealing with a broad range of issues and concerns. The party to which 1 belong has on many occasions put forward realistic recommendations for consideration by the government in dealing with this vital industrial sector. Indeed, just a month ago, on March 28, a private member's motion in my name was debated in this House at which time a whole series of ideas, recommendations, and specific suggestions were made by myself and by other members of the official opposition. We outlined in detail the necessity of allowing tax credits for investment in small business. We outlined in detail the necessity of providing assistance in the formation of small business export consortia.
It was ironic that I was able to take part yesterday in the debate dealing with the Export Development Act. I will quote one sentence I said in this regard:
It is unfortunate that there does not exist in the act or in this amendment a condition in the guarantee which would include a reasonable portion of the guarantee to be subcontracted to small and medium size industries in Canada.
This is a typical example of what the government policy is and has been in the past, but I hope will not continue to be in the future. Whenever the government deals with enterprise and with the economy, all legislation is always geared toward the same sector, that sector being the multinational large enterprises, many of them not even Canadian-owned. I have no concerns about that. My concern is that none of the legislation is geared toward the vast small and medium size community which is responsible for over 60 per cent of the labour force in Canada today. The Export Development Act, for example, is a perfect vehicle which could provide assistance in the formation of small and medium size enterprise export consortia. That is not happening. There is no indication from the government to include any of the export agencies to deal with small business. The EDC acts, helps, and assists roughly 20 to 25 large multinational corporations in Canada. That is why hundreds of millions of dollars are spent. It is very necessary, I admit; but
Improvement Loans
until we broaden the scope of this assistance we will be far behind the other industrialized nations of the world.
We have also made specific recommendations, and I believe this to be of vital importance, that the government change its tendering practices so that small business supplies a portion of government purchased goods and services. This is a long-established practice in the United States where it has been very effective. The small business community is competitive enough and there are enough sales both in respect to goods and services that governments can offer tendering opportunities to the small business community. Of course as far back as 1972 this party was advocating the necessity of substantially reducing the government's paperwork burden imposed on small business.
In this bill before us one of the amendments will increase from $50,000 to a maximum of $75,000 the principal amount of the loans under all three acts, namely, the Small Businesses Loans Act, Farm Improvement Loans Act, and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. Naturally we welcome this amendment. Any amendment or any bill for the support of small business is welcome.
This is just one other example of the specific recommendation which we have been making for some time on this side of the House. As a matter of fact during that same debate on my motion on March 28, prior to the introduction of this bill, my colleague, the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), put on record this specific recommendation. I will quote from page 4398 of Hansard which reads:
I also think that after having gone through an era of a very high rate of inflation the amount of the loan $50,000, should be increased to at least $75,000 and perhaps even to $100,000. Perhaps also that should come up for annual review.
In view of the inflation we have been through, and if the Minister of State (Small Business) (Mr. Marchand) is recommending changes to the Small Businesses Loans Act, perhaps he should give consideration to increasing the gross volume of business for firms qualifying under that act. I suggest that we look at something in the order of $1.5 million.
Strangely enough the next day the Minister of State (Small Business) (Mr. Marchand) announced that he would introduce amendments under the Small Businesses Loans Act using nearly the exact words of the hon. member for Capilano. I quote from the minister's own press release the day after, which reads:
More money will be available under the Small Businesses Loans Act and more businesses will qualify under planned changes to it, Small Business Minister Len Marchand said Monday. The biggest loan now available under the act is $50,000. But the government is considering increasing this to $75,000 or perhaps $100,000, Marchand said ...
When the minister spoke on this bill last Friday he indicated that the interest rates on these loans would be tied to a rate somewhere between 1 per cent and 2 per cent above prime. Those are the very words the hon. member for Capilano used a month earlier in that same speech. I will quote again from Hansard at page 4398 when he said:
I suggest that that rate above prime should be in the order of 1.25 per cent to 1.75 per cent so that we do not again get into the situation we have experienced whereby we have fixed the rate and removed the incentive from chartered banks to involve themselves in government guaranteed loans.

April 28, 1977
Improvement Loans
Strangely enough one of the minister's own colleagues, the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik), in response to our recommendations in this regard of increasing interest rates had this to say, and I quote from Hansard at page 4401:
I, for one, take exception to a point raised by the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington). I enjoyed his remarks. He said that he would prefer it if the Small Businesses Loans Act would allow the banks to charge higher interest rates. That may make sense at first, but does not make sense when one examines the idea in depth. I think there is a better way to provide assistance than that suggested by the hon. member. The government assumes the risk of those loans; therefore I do not see why a bank should be entitled to as much interest as when it assumes the risk itself. It makes no sense.
He went on to say:
... the law should require the banks to devote a minimum percentage of loans to the small business community. And these loans should not be charged at rip-off interest rates, either, as implied in my honourable friend's suggestion.
This was one of the minister's own colleagues speaking at the very same time that this bill was being drawn up by the government. It is just another example of the so-called unanimity within the Liberal administration on the other side.
The point I am trying to make here, with all these quotes and comparisons, is a simple one, yet I believe a most important one at the same time. I call this a motherhood issue because nothing has been done for so long that anything within reason that is implemented by a government for the benefit of this sector is hailed as a breakthrough. The point is that it is too bad, in fact it is a shame, and kind of a waste to the people of Canada, that our political system has to be a game, instead of the government encouraging opposition members to participate positively through the simple incentive of thanks or even a slight word of recognition. These amendments that are before us now-and I have proved by the various quotes from members on this side prior to the introduction of the bill-are a typical example of recommendations being made by the official opposition and utilized by the government in such a devious way as to make it look as if it were done by it.
We do not mind if the government borrows or steals some of our recommendations. It is known for its flip-flops. Wage and price controls are one of its most famous flip-flops. But there are so many flip-flops that the government does not know whether it is flipping or flopping these days any longer.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: We never borrow any of your ideas.


Otto John Jelinek: You borrowed this one. The honourable member said: "We never borrow any of your ideas". He could not have been listening when I quoted the specific recommendations of this party. But we do not mind. As a matter of fact, so far as small business is concerned, this vital sector of the economy can no longer wait for government action and the government should take into consideration some of our recommendations. 1 have heard none coming from the government side, yet we have made recommendations time and again, several of which I have listed in my remarks this evening.

Having said that, even though we agree these amendments are for the good of the business community and for Canada generally, they do not go far enough to achieve their objective. The government boasts that this bill is an improvement and will increase eligibility from $1 million to $1.5 million of gross sales, and increase from $50,000 to a maximum of $75,000 the principal amount of all loans made under the act. But this is merely keeping pace with inflation. Had these amendments not come before the House and the old levels remained, the small business community would have been robbed by the amount of increased inflation over the last three years. So basically what we are doing here is keeping up with inflation.
I believe this bill should have offered a lot more than it has, such as higher maximums, higher annual gross revenues for eligibility, an increase in the number of institutions offering these loans other than chartered banks, and a far greater variety of reasons qualifying people for loans, not only those engaged in small business but in the area of farm improvements and fisheries as well. I am not going to dwell on this matter because I look forward to bringing forward these recommendations perhaps by way of amendments when the bill reaches committee stage.
If the government is serious about trying to assist the small business community, then it will have to dedicate itself to the betterment of that community along the lines adopted by the United States Congress. The United States Congress has a declared policy to support small and medium enterprises. It has a small business administration with a mandate to achieve certain goals and objectives, all of which are contributing to a far better economic climate, one we can never hope to have in this country unless we set our goals and our sights in a similar direction. The government cannot deal with a complex situation like the small and medium size enterprise sector on an ad hoc basis. An over-all policy must be established, perhaps in the form of a small business act, something which is drastically missing.
Nearly one year ago, I believe, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) appointed a minister of state responsible for small business. I suggest we are 20 years behind other industrialized nations. Every other industrialized nation in the world appoints a minister responsible for small business. In view of the record of this government in regard to its creation of "sub-ministers", I do not have very much faith in the appointment of the Minister of State (Small Business). It can be compared with the Prime Minister's appointment of a minister of multiculturalism prior to the 1974 election. Since the ethnic people of Canada were discontented with some of the attitudes of the government, in order to appease this large group of new Canadians the Prime Minister appointed a minister responsible for multiculturalism. We all know what happened to that minister and to that department; they disappeared as soon as the government received a mandate in the 1974 election. I hope the intention is not the same regarding the minister in charge of small business.
April 28, 1977

As I have said, government policy in the shape of an act must be established in the near future if we are to change the situation and find solutions which potentially exist. The first step in the establishment of such a policy or act must be to define the portfolio of the minister of state in charge of small business, a definition which can universally be used as a working definition by other government departments which deal from time to time with the problems of small businessmen. When I asked several months ago whether the Minister of State (Small Business) had such a definition, he had to admit he had not. I doubt very much whether the government has any intention of establishing a definition which would form the basis of potential policy or a small business act, hence my reservations about the intentions of the government.
I realize the difficulty that the minister himself is having in attempting to pull the many loose ends together. His is not an easy job since a small business portfolio has never existed before in this country. He is also attempting at the same time to act as a sort of liaison between the many departments having to do with small business from time to time. I am sure he is working in good faith within his own portfolio, and although I know he has travelled diligently across the country on behalf of small business, as I have, if I have to fault him personally in any way it would have to be for not yet having travelled abroad to other industrialized nations to compare the situations there and learn how far behind we are in the area of small business.
I have had the opportunity to visit West Germany to attend a small business symposium. I have been to Washington to meet with members of the small business administration. I have had the opportunity of travelling to Japan where I met with the director general of the small and medium enterprise agency. I have compared programs which we could follow. There is nothing wrong with borrowing successful programs and implementing them in this country. Since I have had an opportunity of studying these programs I am in the position of being able to make recommendations to the minister.
I wish the minister had had the same opportunity as I to travel to these industrialized capitals of the world, instead of only having one trip abroad as minister responsible for small business. He visited Moscow in the Soviet Union; perhaps he was studying their new capitalist system or free enterprise system! As 1 say, we must examine successful programs in other nations and borrow their policies. Japan has a small and medium enterprise agency, the United States has a small business administration. West Germany, Belgium and others have similar agencies and administrations dedicated to the betterment of their industrial way of life. We have no such administration.
I hope that interested groups such as chambers of commerce across the country, the Canadian Manufacturers Association, and the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses will put sufficient pressure on the government so it takes the initiatives and develops small business policy emcompassing all of the areas affected by the small business community. The small businessman on his own is not powerful enough to lobby
Improvement Loans
the government in the way the large multinational corporations are. The small businessman whether in the east, the west, northern Ontario, Quebec City or anywhere else in Canada, has the same problems. It is one of the biggest areas of unity in this country. The same problems are faced by all these people, but they cannot deal with them alone. I urge the interested groups to continue to bring pressure on the government to improve its thinking with regard to this important industrial aspect.
As I said before, my concern is so genuine regarding the problems of small business and freedom of enterprise that I hope the seriousness of these problems and the potential solutions, some of which I have mentioned, can be dealt with on a non-partisan basis. It is only possible on a number of issues in this country, small business being one of them. We cannot wait any longer to move in a positive direction in this regard. I hope all members realize the seriousness of this situation, as I know the Minister of State for Small Business has realized it, but unfortunately he does not have sufficient powers as yet-and I use the word "yet" advisedly because I hope this will come-to convince the cabinet that small business in the field of economics is a major area of importance which has been overlooked by the government for far too long. At least more of us now have began to talk about the issue- that is an improvement.
When in the late 1960's as a small businessman I first started making public pronouncements, recommendations, and suggestions voicing the concerns of the small business community, we were not talking about the issue at that time. There is an improvement now; we are at least beginning to talk about it. In many cases we have begun to listen as well. The government must have been listening in order to come up with this piece of legislation because it did not come up with these recommendations before taking them from us. It is not until the government commits itself to action in this regard that we will stop losing the diminishing opportunities for small business that still exist in the field of economics and free enterprise.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, following along the same lines as my colleague, I want to begin my remarks by saying that certainly we will support this bill, but that is not to say that we are wholeheartedly in agreement with it. When I saw the bill for the first time I was flabbergasted, and I asked my colleagues to look at it. It is so flimsy that it could not possibly contain all the things that we should be doing to support and bolster the small business community in Canada. However, I have to support the bill because this is a part of what we in the official opposition have been asking for over the past few years.
I accept the proposal to raise the limits on loans and on what would constitute a small business. In light of today's inflation and of the cost of doing business it is proper that we should raise our sights and recognize the fact that any business with an annual volume of $1.5 million is actually a small business.

April 28, 1977
Improvement Loans
It would not have been out of line to raise that limit to $2 million when one takes into consideration the loss in inflation. I am not sure that raising the limit on borrowing from $50,000 to $75,000 is going far enough to catch up with the changing economic picture in Canada and elsewhere. Raising it to $100,000 might have been more realistic and would have been less than 10 per cent of the volume of business allowable to qualify as a small business under the terms of the act.
Again let me commend the Minister of State (Small Business) (Mr. Marchand) for bringing in this bill. I understand it is for a three year term, and if the amounts do not seem large enough I hope he will go to cabinet and ask them to reconsider the figures even during the term of the bill before us.
Speaking in terms of the tourist business, a business that is of more than just passing interest in my area of Parry Sound-Muskoka, you cannot do very much with $75,000 today. It would not buy you very much in the way of tourist facilities and it would not go very far in upgrading tourist facilities. In my area there are many resorts that would be better attractions if they could afford to refurbish and upgrade their facilities. There are many businesses in my area which would like to expand or modernize their establishments, but they are faced with the prospect of a continued decline in tourism.
As most hon. members are aware, Canada's tourist balance has been tilted in favour of the United States over the past few years and even in favour of countries overseas. Last year we had a deficit in our tourist balance of almost $1.5 million. This is a lot of lost dollars and a lot of unhappy businessmen and tourist operators.
When I think of small businesses and this proposed legislation to aid the small business community I have to think of the small businesses in my riding which depend on tourism to survive, and of the thousands of people in the riding who depend on those small businesses for their seasonal employment. When those people cannot depend on tourist jobs in the summer it makes for a pretty lean year for them, and far too many of my people had just such a lean year in the past year. I want something better for them and I know that we are capable of providing something better. I am also aware that a great many of the other ridings are in the same predicament.
When I saw this bill I knew it would not contain many recommendations that we in the official opposition have been pressing for over the past three or four years. However, I suggest it is simply a means of looking after the immediate problems in the hope that we would accept these provisions and not come back demanding more. If that is so, then it is a vain hope. I do not intend to let up on my fight to have something in the way of a small business administration in Canada along the lines of the small business administration in the United States. We need it, and I will continue to demand it.
My colleague, the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek), mentioned the assistance provided by the U.S. government for small businessmen. Certainly they could use it in my area. We have a golden opportunity to draw on the small business act in the United States. We do not even
have to break new ground. We only have to study the record and success of this act and take from it the things that would apply directly to our own situation and our own needs, and adapt them to our own system. There is no doubt that the small business administration in the U.S. has been an unqualified success.
There are people who scoff at the idea of borrowing anything from our neighbour to the south, and possibly the socialists and the supranationalists would be included among them. They will tell you that we will lose our identity if we borrow any techniques and expertise from the United States and that we should guard our purity from the Yankees. To those people I simply say, "Nonsense, pull your head out of the sand." It is time for action to get our small business community in high gear and get our economy on the move again.
I might sound repetitious but I will take that risk and repeat that small businesses in Canada provide more than 55 per cent of the jobs in our country. They account for more than 50 per cent of the dollar value of business conducted in our country, and that is no small amount. Taken as an economic unit the small business community is the single most important economic community in our country. That is surely reason enough to look upon this unit with more than just passing interest. We have to look upon it as the most important tool in the fight against unemployment. We have to look upon it as the most important lever to get our economy moving again.
The two items in this bill affecting small business are just not enough. There is still no indication that the government is going to give the Minister of State (Small Business) the tools and the latitude he needs to become the effective minister he could be and should be.
It must be pretty frustrating for that very capable minister to know that he is severely limited in his ability to provide leadership to the small business people of our country. I sincerely hope that the appointment of the minister to such an important post does not turn out to be merely window dressing.
I presume the minister is engaged in other important matters this evening, or he would be here. I am quite sure he is interested in quick passage of this bill.
Bill C-48 will carry on the Small Businesses Loans Act for three years following June 30. As I mentioned before, it certainly has some good points. To date I believe $480 million has been lent out as small business loans since the inception of the act back in about 1961. While close to half a billion dollars is a lot money, spread over that number of years I do not think it is very much. If that figure were compared with the number of applications, I am sure there would have been many applicants who were not able to avail themselves of the benefits which will again be made available under this very worthwhile bill.
I have some figures which are worth-while putting on the record once again. There is a total of 329,000 small businesses throughout Canada. Of these, 137,000 are classified wholesale; 32,000 construction; 46,000 manufacturing; 37,000 service

April 28, 1977

industries; 56,000 transportation and warehousing; 13,000 are apartment owners; and 8,000 are owners of other buildings but still classified small businesses. Many of these businesses have applied for small business loans through chartered banks and have been told that funds were not available and that the allocated amount for such and such a chartered bank or such and such a branch had been used up. However, they were told that money would be available at regular interest rates, which are 2 per cent and sometimes 3 per cent higher. I know many hon. members have been faced with this problem.
Businessmen have written asking about the preferred small business loan and how to go about getting it, and hon. members write back telling them to go to their own bank branches and how to approach their bank managers. This is frustrating for them, and they come back to their members of parliament wanting to know what to do because it is just a joke. I have received dozens of letters from very disgruntled businessmen who have approached their banks and asked for loans.
At one time the loans were at a much lower interest rate. I believe the current rate is 9.5 per cent. We know that in the past year or two the rate was not realistic because banks could hardly be expected to lend money at the prime rate. So although the interest rate is not stipulated in this bill-it will probably be proclaimed by order in council or in some other way-I hope it will be attractive.
I have received some caustic comments from some people in this regard. They complain that they go to the bank and borrow money at 12 per cent. We tell them that they can get money under the Small Businesses Loans Act for 9.5 per cent, but there is no money. We read in the paper that the Government of Canada is lending money to Third World countries, and one example has been thrown at me on different occasions. Perhaps other hon. members have received the same complaint, that is, that the government was lending money to Cuba at 3 per cent and that it should lend money to its own citizens at a more attractive interest rate than the going rate.
I know a great many businessmen who are hard up and who are trying to get money for working capital. I know they have not been able to avail themselves of it through this particular channel, but the important thing for them is to get the money, period. A good many are willing to pay almost any rate, so they borrow money from finance companies, and most of us know that finance companies borrow their money at a very high rate of interest and lend it out at an even higher rate. We find some small businessmen paying 14 per cent, 15 per cent and even more in order to keep going and to get working capital. That is a real hardship for them.
Small businessmen are frustrated by the red tape demanded by the federal government, and possibly provincial governments as well. There are forms which have to be filled out. Sales have to be divulged, and so do various other business activities. Time and again small businesses have had to hire people who should actually be on the payroll of the government because all they do is provide information to various levels of government. Perhaps the government could give some consideration to sending these forms out on, shall we say, a hit
Improvement Loans
and miss basis instead of to every small business. In this way, like the Gallup Poll, the government could get the information it needs without demanding it from every small businessman from Newfoundland to British Columbia. Small businessmen are required to fill out these forms on pain of fines and, I suppose, imprisonment, and that is certainly frustrating to them.
I see that the Postmaster General (Mr. Blais) is here. I received a letter from a businessman in Huntsville which says: "I am interested in opening a small mail order business and wish to direct questions to the Minister of Small Business." I have written the minister and given him the necessary information. The writer of this letter is a real optimist because his business is going to depend on the Post Office.


Mr. Blais:: He is going to make a lot of money.


Stan Darling: I have a great deal of respect for the Postmaster General who represents the riding adjacent to mine; that is, of course, with certain reservations. During the last Post Office strike prior to Christmas of 1975 a great many small businessmen were put out of business. That happened during one strike, and it was really crippling. Big business could roll with the punch and hire their own carriers. Which was the biggest hiring carrier during the strike? The government, you bet your life. It could get on without the Post Office, but the little John Smith and all the other small citizens of the country, they could not get along without the Post Office. Mr. Speaker, the Post Office provides an important service, which we hope will improve.
The Postmaster General may be interested to know that last week I had the privilege of being in London, England, to investigate the operations of the British postal service. Although the British postal service, according to the British themselves, is not the best in the world, it is not the worst either. When I told English people in this country that 1 was going to England to examine the postal service, they laughed in my face. Similarly, when my colleague, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), was in the United States to assess the postal service of that country for the purpose of being able to suggest to our Postmaster General how to improve this country's postal service, he was laughed at also. True, England is not as large as Canada. Nevertheless 93 per cent of first class mail is delivered the next day. That is a pretty good record.


Otto John Jelinek: We cannot match that sort of service, even if the mail is to be sent to points within the city of origin.


An hon. Member:: Ninety-one per cent of our first class mail arrives the next day.


Stan Darling: Never. Mr. Speaker, I am not necessarily talking of service between the extremes of our country, say between the west coast and Newfoundland. I am talking of a radius of between 300 miles.

April 28, 1977
Improvement Loans


Fred Alward McCain: Next day delivery is reserved for cabinet ministers.


Stan Darling: Perhaps the hon. member is right. I went to England to examine their postal service and to talk to their unions. After all, workers are most important in a post office operation and you cannot do the job unless the workers are behind you. Altogether there are 472,000 employees in the postal service of Great Britain, if you include telephone and telecommunications employees as well. I think the Post Office employs directly 117,000 workers. Mr. Speaker, over there workers sit down with management. They may sympathize with each other's views and try to iron out difficulties. 1 wish we could do that here. I know the Postmaster General is trying to improve the situation, and his efforts are important for the small businessman. I see you looking at me with a jaundiced eye, Mr. Speaker, as if I am out of order. Let me say that the postal service is important to all business but is the lifeblood of small business in this country.
A businessman may have the best product to sell, the best service to provide, the best reputation. Everything about his business may be about A-l. But if he cannot please his customers and he relies on the postal service, he will be out of luck if anything goes wrong with the service. Clearly, our Post Office provides an essential service.
I hope the Post Office will listen sympathetically to some of our union people, and when I say that I am not carrying the torch for that Scotsman, Joe Davidson; oh, no! The ordinary Post Office worker wants to do his job. In Great Britain the postmen take great pride in carrying the Queen's mail.
We also learned that the post office in Great Britain is a public corporation, not a government department as it is in Canada. I was surprised to learn that, thinking that at least the British post office would be a Crown corporation. But no, they call it a public corporation over there. I wanted to put that point on the record.
I say to the Postmaster General through you, Mr. Speaker, that the small businessman depends heavily on this country's postal service. In many cases the postal service can make or break a business. This bill will certainly help the small businessman obtain money, provided the businessman can qualify for loans. Certainly many will not qualify for loans; many businessmen cannot put up the proper security. That, of course, is the name of the game. They must at least show that they have enough security to show the banks, and the government, that they can pay the money back.
I commend the government for introducing this bill and hope it will be given quick passage. Certainly it will help farmers, and there are many farmers in Parry Sound-Muskoka who will want to avail themselves of money available under this legislation. One must not forget that the bill will also be of benefit to many commercial fishermen and make money available to them.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Mr. Speaker, I wish to intervene briefly in this debate. I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling)

enlighten the House about the importance of Post Office service in Canada and am flattered that he took the time to visit Great Britain to examine the nature of the British postal service. As he suggested, in Great Britain the Post Office, unlike the Post Office in Canada, is in the business of delivering hard mail and is engaged in other communications enterprises. I thank him very much for having stressed that small business in Canada depends heavily on our postal service.


Stan Darling: Right on.


Jean-Jacques Blais: That service is essential. I am pleased to note that in the hon. member opposite the Post Office has an advocate and I thank him for making his remarks during the debate on this important bill.
I support the bill now before the House and think it is a brilliant initiative. We advocated such an initiative when I was a backbencher. Many times we pressed the government to bring forward the sort of legislation we are presently considering and I am pleased, now that I am in the cabinet, that the House is at last considering these important measures.
I again thank the hon. member and hope that in future he will provide as much support for the Post Office as he has provided this evening.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I hoped the Minister of State (Small Business) (Mr. Marchand) would be present this evening so that we could congratulate him and wish him well in his portfolio. The hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek) paid him a compliment. The minister has travelled across the country, getting in touch with small businessmen and learning their problems. He hopes to arrive at solutions. I note that the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley was critical of the minister for visiting Russia. He went to that country to learn some of their business techniques. Certainly his visit extended his horizons, but whether he obtained any helpful information is another question.


Otto John Jelinek: What? Do you expect to find small business in Russia?


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I look on this bill as a piece of tokenism. It sets out a great deal of framework to help small businessmen but the substance is lacking. Is it not odd that we need to provide public assistance to fishermen, farmers, and small businessmen, the so-called backbone of private enterprise in Canada? Apparently our small enterprisers cannot get assistance from the big enterprisers, the large corporations, and must fall back on the government for assistance.
Actually I am proud that the government has taken the initiative of bringing forward this legislation which will help farmers. It will help them to finance their operations. It will help fishermen who face difficult times these days not only with respect to catches but with respect to financing, and it will help the small businessman. Small businessmen are becoming an ever-diminishing breed in Canada. If that
April 28, 1977

favoured phrase "private enterprise" is to have any meaning, we must take some initiative to help them.
Bill C-48 does three things. The loan limits in the three acts of parliament the bill seeks to amend are to be raised from $50,000 to $75,000 and the increased ceiling will be a help to fishermen, farmers, and small businessmen.
Second, it raises the eligibility requirement in defining small business enterprise from $1 million to $l'/2 million, which takes into account the pressures of inflation.
Third, it extends the period for which loans can be made under the three programs from July 1, 1977, to June 30, 1980. It also increases the aggregate amount of loans made in this period in which the minister would be liable for losses.
With regard to the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the minister would be liable for an increase from $1,400 million to $1,550 million; with regard to the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act from $70 million to $80 million; and with regard to the Small Business Loans Act from $350 million to $600 million.
We have watched a dramatic trend in Canada from small business to big business. In the past England used to be known as a nation of shopkeepers. We in Canada had a good mixture of farmers, fishermen, and businessmen. Now we see the development from small business to big business, and from big business to large corporations, mostly multinational corporations.
According to the 1971 figures, which are the latest figures available, we have 153,000 non-financial corporations in Canada, but 626, or 4 per cent, account for 63 per cent of the total business assets, 58 per cent of the total profits, and paid only 46 per cent of the taxes. That underlines the trend that has taken place in Canada and other countries throughout the world.
In Canada we have four companies which supply 80 per cent of the refined petroleum, four companies which supply 80 per cent of our flour, four companies which supply 95 per cent of our cars, and four companies which supply 80 per cent of our iron and steel. This trend destroys the concept of private enterprise. It eliminates competition, drives prices up, and places the key sector of the economy in the hands of monopolies and oligopolies.
There are three types of enterprise in Canada; private enterprise, public enterprise and co-operative enterprise. All members will agree that the last one, co-operative enterprise, has done an excellent job with regard to protecting certain groups in society. Western farmers had to band together in co-ops to protect themselves from high feed, grain and fertilizer prices. Only by doing this through the co-operative enterprise were they able to obtain prices that were reasonable.
Co-ops have played a very important part in the economy of Canada. I am sure that members from the maritimes can give dramatic instances of how co-ops have played a very important part in helping small business people.
Improvement Loans
We also have public enterprise which has played a very important part in our school, hydro, and many other systems. It is rather striking that most private enterprises look upon the government in terms of their freedom. They say the government should never participate in public enterprise. The less they participate, the happier the private enterprise boys are. The less taxes the private enterprise boys pay, the happier they are. That is their concept of public enterprise.
Private enterprise is full of examples of business failures, bankruptcies, wasteful spending, price fixing, and fraud. It is rather frightening that some insurance companies in Nova Scotia which were found guilty of price fixing over an 11 year period are now helping to sponsor the present "let's free enterprise" program. These private insurance companies which talk about private enterprise were found guilty by the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia of price fixing, yet they are now sponsoring the "let's free enterprise" program. One can imagine the expenses of this program, which are tax deductible. This is the way some of the free enterprise boys act.
I suggest we should have someone to help like Ralph Nader, who made a study with regard to large enterprises and the practices they pursue. Indeed the practices they pursued against Nader himself were shocking. The public should know in detail some of the practices in which private enterprise participates.
I stated that private enterprise is full of examples of business failures. Many of them tried to criticize public enterprise with regard to their so-called inability to operate and participate in business. In Ontario, that grand province of private enterprise, there were 1,074 private enterprise failures in 1975, one year. In Alberta there were 173. In Saskatchewan, which believes in a good measure of public enterprise as compared to private enterprise, there were a mere 11 business failures. In Manitoba the number was also down.
It is rather significant that when small enterprise gets into difficulty, or even if it is quite successful, the first thing it does is sell out to big enterprise. The hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley may be an example of a successful businessman in a small enterprise which became successful. He does not want small enterprise to continue, so he sold to big enterprise. Big enterprise then gets into the position of price fixing, monopolies, and controlling the flow of goods. These are some of the things that we decry. However, private enterprise participates in these practices.
The hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley talked about the Export Development Corporation which is a public enterprise. It is a government institution which attempts to facilitate certain companies with regard to their financing arrangements so that they can increase their volume of business and thereby increase their employment.
According to the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley, the Export Development Corporation only finances 25 multinational corporations. If that is so, that is a terrible indictment against private enterprise.

April 28, 1977
Improvement Loans
We have been hearing for weeks revelations in connection with Crown corporations, stories about some of the nefarious practices which have gone on. We have clamoured for a public debate to examine those practices and make recommendations with regard to changes. It could be said that public enterprises are only pursuing the practices of some of the large private enterprises throughout the world. If we were to examine some of the large enterprises we would find similar offences, if not worse, with regard to shabby practices, price-fixing, restriction of output and so forth.
There is a place for the three types of enterprise-co-operative, private and public. Public enterprise has a responsibility to ensure that its financial institutions direct a certain part of their investment portfolios to fulfilling the needs of Canadians. They are called upon to respond to human needs. If public enterprise fails to do this, it is rightly criticized. But we do not criticize with the same vigour some of the larger private corporations on similar grounds. We in the New Democratic Party think this bill is a step in the right direction. Small businessmen are becoming few in number; the competitive practices pursued by the large corporations make it necessary that they be given some assistance from the public purse.
Mir. Jelinek: You sound just like a Conservative.


John Gilbert: If I do, Mr. Speaker, I ask forgiveness and will start my speech again, because that is the last thing I want to sound like. Conservatives talk grandly about private enterprise. They are the protectors of the banks and of the large corporations and they pretend to be the protectors of the small businessman, the farmer, and the fisherman. But I have not seen any initiative of note in Alberta or Ontario to help small businessmen. They certainly need help in Ontario where small businessmen are being gobbled up by the multinationals. The New Democratic Party would set forth certain programs for their benefit.
I was happy to hear the hon. member for High Park-Humb-er Valley tell us what the Conservatives would do. This is what we would do. We believe the government has a responsibility to ensure that financial institutions direct their loans so as best to serve the public, not just to maximize profits. The best example is that of the privately-owned chartered banks. All their business practices are directed to maximizing their profits. But they do so at the expense of small businessmen, fishermen, and farmers. The rates of interest they charge make it very difficult for small businessmen to operate.
The hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley says he hopes the interest rate under these three programs will be between 1 and 2 per cent above the prime rate. Well, we are talking there in terms of 11, 12 or maybe 13 per cent being imposed on a small loan to a businessman or to a farmer. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, a small fisherman in Newfoundland paying interest at that rate? Farmers are in the same position.

When a farmer goes to a bank manager for a loan to buy seeds and so forth he finds it very difficult to operate at a profit if he must pay interest rates of 12 or 13 per cent. I am sure the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) has had this experience. Farmers in the north, where he lives, find it very hard to succeed when they are obliged to pay high interest rates. If the interest which is to be charged under this legislation is to be 1 or 2 per cent above the prime rate, I say to the farmers, fishermen and small businessmen that they are not getting much assistance from the federal government.
Hon. members have the right to ask me: what has the New Democratic Party done to help small business? I should like to tell them. In Saskatchewan they have a business assistance branch to help small business and it is part of the department of industry and commerce. I notice that one of the Saskatchewan members is listening very attentively; he will probably add praise to what I am about to say.
The aim of this program in Saskatchewan is to improve the management of small business. It began in 1973 and its budget is gradually increasing as the branch demonstrates its worth. What is being done? There is an information service, and assistance is given in interpreting legislation. I have heard many members tell us that businessmen find difficulty in understanding the intent of legislation or with regard to filling out business forms. This department provides small businessmen with the necessary information and assistance.
The second area of activity is a business review program, commonly called counselling. Problems are identified and solutions found. Most of the clients referred for counselling have been in trouble and have been recommended by a bank or a municipality. It is important, if a man has gone to a bank and finds himself in trouble, that he can turn to a department of government for assistance. The work of this branch is co-ordinated with the Saskatchewan Economic Development Company-SECO. Higher risk loans are often granted on condition that the client works with the business review program division for two years.


Ralph Goodale: Don't take any credit for that, John.


John Gilbert: I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Goodale) is interjecting. I hope he will get up and devote part of his speech to the said program. It is an attempt by the provincial government to meet the problems of small businessmen through counselling, advice and assistance. This is a very important part of the program.
The third part of it is a business retention program. This is the goal-to improve commercial services to small communities where a businessman is retiring from a business deemed to be key to his community. Assistance will be provided to him in finding a buyer on the condition that he takes back some of the funding. The purchaser must agree to work with the branch, and in return will be guaranteed a basic return for two years.
April 28, 1977

Throughout Canada, and more especially in small towns, we have seen the owners of small key businesses either wanting to retire or to sell. If that happens, in many instances it directly affects the employment of the employees within that small town. Therefore it is very important that the right type of buyer comes in to protect the jobs of the people who are working there, and at times to help the person sell his business. Therefore it is a step in the right direction to help small businesses and in turn to help the worker.
There is another program of which I am sure the parliamentary secretary is very proud. It is called the Saskatchewan Main Street Program. It is rather attractive; it is for towns with a population under 2000. If all merchants agree, the program will pay half the cost of exterior clean-ups of stores up to a maximum of $500. Equal grants will be then given to the municipality for clean-up and landscaping. This is another attempt by government to assist people in small towns to make their enterprises more attractive so that they may increase their sales, increase their volume, and also provide more employment.
These are some of the measures which we would take with regard to small business assistance. We would then strike to the heart of the problem. Our next thing would be a taxation policy which would assist small business people. In 1976 in British Columbia, the New Democratic Party, in its budget brought forth legislation which gave a tax reduction to small businesses, from 12 per cent to 10 per cent. It was a step in the right direction, while the other large corporations had their taxes increased from 12 per cent to 13 per cent. I understand that some of the Conservative members from British Columbia are most unhappy with the practices in the legislation of the Social Credit government in B.C. Perhaps the hon. member for Capistrano-


Ralph Goodale: That is the swallows from Capistrano.


John Gilbert: Perhaps the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) would say that there has been a tremendous increase in business failures in British Columbia as a result of the Social Credit practices and legislation. If anything, the Social Credit Party in B.C. has a very close affinity to the Conservative philosophy.
The Conservative and Liberal governments have given more tax breaks and concessions to the large, powerful, and mostly foreign corporations than they have to small business. I do not think I have to stress that point. I will just give you one example. The major oil companies have so far deferred paying $936 million in income taxes. Just the interest alone on that $936 million would more than finance the programs that we are talking about in Bill C-48. This is the attitude and this is the philosophy of both the Liberal and the Conservative governments with regard to helping large corporations at the expense of small businessmen, fishermen, and farmers. I would call it corporate welfare.
It is amazing how the number of Conservatives and others who are very critical of people who are unemployed and who need financial assistance and who go to the government and
Improvement Loans
ask for welfare, are quite appalling in their criticisms. They strike hard at these people who are asking for assistance to meet the necessities of life-food, clothing, and housing. Yet they do nothing with regard to the corporate welfare that is given to the large corporations. In fact they ask for more corporate welfare.
If I understood the substance of what the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley was saying tonight, he said that this does not go far enough; it does not increase the maximum loan sufficiently; and it does not deal with interest rates more favourably to the corporations. He came through very strongly, very clearly and very loudly, when he said that it does not help their tax problems. Now, if large corporations need tax assistance-


An hon. Member:: We are talking about small businesses.


John Gilbert: If large corporations need tax assistance, they certainly have got it. The large corporations have got the tax assistance at the expense of small business. This is our point. This is what really hurts. The small businessman has been crucified by large business.


Fred Alward McCain: And by taxes.


John Gilbert: "And by taxes", as my hon. friend says. The last point I have is a very important point.


An hon. Member:: Come out of your cocoon and look the world over.


John Gilbert: The last point is with regard to full employment. It is rather shocking that we have more than 800,000 people unemployed-


Fred Alward McCain: It is more than 900,000.


John Gilbert: My hon. friend has just corrected me and said that it is more than 900,000 people. Is that not a disgrace? If those 900,000 people were working, they would have incomes from which they could buy the needs and necessities of life. Their moneys, in turn, would help small businessmen, would help the small fishermen and would help the small farmers. This is very important, and yet we have seen the direction of the government to help large corporations rather than solve the problems of unemployment. Full employment is a necessary requirement if these programs under Bill C-48 are going to be successful.
All I can say in closing is that it is a step in the right direction. It is a very short step; but I hope the day comes when we recognize in full the necessity to help small businesses, to help the fishermen, and to help the farmers. They are the backbone of the nation.


Walter David Baker: Hear, hear! You are a raving Conservative!

April 28, 1977
Improvement Loans


John Gilbert: I hope that when they become successful they do not go running, crying and cringing to the government asking for more tax concessions, more corporate welfare and, worst of all, have the small businessman sell his business to large business, which in turn will control both price and production. We in Canada are in serious danger of having small businesses swallowed up by large businesses, and I do not think the bill goes far enough in protecting, assisting, and encouraging small businesses.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, if one takes a look at cocoons and the foliage of our country, or under the clapboards of old houses, one realizes there has been development and that eventually will emerge one of the beauties of life-to examine and explore the world as it is. I sometimes wonder when those on my left who live in cocoons, such as the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), will ever come out of the cocoon and open their eyes to the world as it is.
I think we have to recognize in fairness to all political faiths in this country that the private enterprise system has developed a structure in which we can have a two car family, a structure which does not exist under those political regimes which those on my left would eulogize, praise, and try to copy, and then suggest to us that we should do the same. A human factor of this world which must be recognized is that there has to be incentive for the individual to produce. That incentive is best provided by the free enterprise system. The remarks of the hon. member were misleading and deceptive.
I do not say this by way of protecting our banking structure; I say it perhaps in condemnation of governmental policy over the years, but it is a fact that the rate of interest charged by any lending institution, whether it be a bank or any other institution, is established by, and related to, the rate set by the Bank of Canada. In the United States the rate is set by the Federal Reserve Board, and so on down the line. Lending institutions, whether publicly owned or privately owned, will certainly lend on the guidelines established by the federally controlled monetary system of this country. There is nothing that the Caisses Populaire, the co-operative, or any other financial structure in this land can do but lend at a rate related to the rate established by the Bank of Canada. Any statement to the contrary is intended to deceive and to destroy the confidence of our people and of our investors in our system.
This is not what this bill or any other bill in the House is all about, Mr. Speaker. This is a time when encouragement should be given to every sector of the economy to try to develop, to create employment, whether public or private. Suggestions that there is presently corporate welfare can only come from the mouths of those who have created policies which have created tax structures, which have created the impossible situation that exists for many corporate structures of this land.
The idea that small business is gobbled up by large business is one of the plights of business in New Brunswick. But this

started during the early stages of Confederation. It is still going on, and nothing that government has done can stop it. But much that government has done has accentuated it, and let us recognize what those things were.
First, there was the inheritance tax, which made it utterly and totally impossible for a family to retain in its possession the firm on which it had made its base and on which communities lived. The tax structure has compelled individuals to sell to larger, to smaller, or to other interests. But ownership has been transferred.
When the inheritance tax in many jurisdictions in this country disappeared, there was then a capital gains tax. There is one particular company in my province at the moment which, if it sells at all, will probably sell to a larger firm, and it may be wound up as an employer in our province. I deplore any tax structure which wipes out industry in an area of unemployment in excess of 10 per cent, 12 per cent or 15 per cent, as is the case in the Atlantic area.
Let us point the finger where it belongs, Mr. Speaker. Those families would hold those companies in perpetuity if the tax structure would permit. But it will not so permit, nor will it ever permit so long as government spends according to the course that this government has plotted. We need not speeches which will destroy confidence in this country; we need speeches which will encourage investment to relieve the unemployment structure. When one pleads for an unstable economy, as the hon. member for Broadview did, one is pleading the very opposite of the objective of his party, namely, curing unemployment. Let us get out of the cocoon and look at the real world. Let us try to re-establish confidence, not break it down.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Gilbert: Sounds like the seals are clapping.


Fred Alward McCain: Well, the flippers were flopping with no place to go a minute ago as they set their course from Broadview.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal to be said in favour of small business loans, but there is not very much to be said for a 10 per cent, perhaps 11 per cent, increase in the limits which are allowed under this bill. This bill amends the 1974 act, but in the period of the budget of 1974 versus that of 1978-and this is what I think is a realistic example to take- federal expenditures have increased almost 50 per cent. In the case of small business the expenses of operation have increased no less than they have in the case of government. Yet with the great generosity that this government so often exhibits, it is going to increase the limit on small business loans by almost 11 per cent. This is not keeping good faith with the principles which are being espoused by the bill. It is sheer lip service.
I may be a little repetitive this evening and repeat some of the statements made by the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek) or by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling), but I hope that by no slip of the tongue will I repeat anything said by the hon. member for Broadview.
April 28, 1977


Stanley Howard Knowles: It would be a better speech if you did.


Fred Alward McCain: It would be a better speech in Cuba but I do not think nearly so in Canada.


Ralph Goodale: Tie even distorted what they are doing in Saskatchewan.


Fred Alward McCain: Maybe he copied that from you.


Ralph Goodale: Not a chance.


Fred Alward McCain: Let me turn to farm improvement loans. Again this bill is a step in the right direction, but I should like to point out that many equipment costs and building costs within the farming structure have doubled in this four year period. Labour costs have more than doubled, fuel costs have more than doubled, and in one year alone the cost of pesticides went up 50 per cent. In this particular year, as a result of blind loyalty to certain vested interests-I will not name them because I am not aware of who they are-certain pesticide costs will go up an additional 50 per cent by virtue of the fact that farmers cannot import on their own behalf. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, certain products will no longer be available as pesticides to farmers. Again I submit to you that anything less than doubling the limit of the farm improvement loan is not adequate, and I ask that this be taken into consideration before this bill finally becomes law.
I would like to mention also, as I mentioned before when the bill was being discussed, that as a result of a personal conversation with a bank manager in a particular community I have first hand knowledge of it. I asked for a farm improvement loan and 1 was told bluntly and directly that in that particular branch no farm improvement loans would be made to me or to any other farmer because it was the manager's responsibility to create maximum profit in that branch and he could not do it by means of farm improvement, home improvement or comparable types of loans. Fortunately that was an isolated case.
There should be a clause here that would compel every bank manager to refer every application presented to him in any of the three categories in the area of small business, namely, farm improvement, home improvement, and fisheries improvement loans, to an official of government so that he might have an opportunity to decide whether or not that loan should be made. This decision should not rest in the hands of a small village bank manager. His decision can make or break the small businessman, the farmer or the fisherman. 1 implore the government to give consideration to that suggestion.
We have been accused on many occasions by members of all parties in the House of not making concrete suggestions. I submit this one to you for consideration. Let us see what the government will do with it when it is passed directly to it.
When we get down to the fisheries aspect of this legislation, we find that the increase of $70 million to $80 million does not cover one year's increment in government requirements. If the
Improvement Loans
rate of increment in this ceiling had compared with the rate of increase in government spending in all but one of the past four years, this could have been increased for just one year by more than $10 million. In the fiscal year 1978 the expenditures of government are estimated to go up by 14 per cent. The fisheries ceiling for improvement loans is going up roughly 14 per cent. Fourteen per cent of $70 million would be $9.8 million, and it has increased from $70 million to $80 million. The raising of that ceiling is not a realistic figure.
The Postmaster General (Mr. Blais) injected a few remarks so perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you would permit me to answer them. I want to place on the record tonight that 20 years ago if a letter were mailed in the morning from Ottawa it would be in my community the next day at noon. Today, if I mail a letter to my community, it might arrive in two days, five days or ten days, and it will be five or more days more often than it will be one day. So if the Postmaster General has the unadulterated audacity to interject, regardless of earlier comments in any postal discussion, let him say what he plans to do to return the postal service to at least the standard of the days of the horse and wagon or the stagecoach, because we are presently below that level of postal service in Canada today, particularly in the constituency of Carleton-Charlotte. It is a disgrace at best.
Apparently mail is piled in a corner and left for further consideration when somebody has time to take it out and put it on the rails, on an airplane, or somewhere. This has been detrimental to business, small and large, and particularly to small business. Let me give you one example. It has been impossible for people in my constituency to receive statements from Toronto and get them back by return mail without having passed the due date, so interest charges are imposed if the terms are less than ten days. That is the impact of the type of mail service we have. It should go from Toronto to the Saint John valley in one day and back the next, but it cannot be done, and both big and small businesses are paying a high price to try to accommodate the needs of society.
Let us do everything that can be done not to dampen the spirit of investment, not to dampen the spirit of free enterprise, and not to discourage the development of productive public enterprise if that be the wish of some in the House; but let us get this bill on the rails with reasonable limits and with at least compulsion on lenders to submit the applications to some authority. Let us not vest the authority of final decision in a local bank manager, whether it be a Caisse Populaire or a chartered bank. Let us make these loans truly available, as the philosophy and the principle of the act would indicate the government intended.


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few words in this debate concerning Bill C-48. Like some of the other hon. members who have spoken, I am sorry that the minister who introduced the bill is not in the House because I think it would be helpful if he had heard some of the comments made by my colleagues with respect to the legislation. Many of them have indicated that they have no particular grievance with the bill as far as it goes. Essentially,

April 28, 1977
Improvement Loans
it raises limits that should have been raised some time ago. But I think that the observations that should be made initially by any person reviewing the situation should bring this into perspective.
What has the government been doing as far as small business is concerned, or for the farmer who might be interested in a farm improvement loan, or for the fisherman? The facts are just pathetic. A member on the government side says, "They have just woken up". Maybe he means they have just woken up to how pathetic their effort has been to help small business.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I thought you were opposed to increased spending.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Look how far out of touch the member on the government side is. He thought I was opposed to spending. It is not government spending we are talking about tonight. This is the guaranteeing of bank loans to small business. Do you not understand that?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Address the Chair.


An hon. Member:: He is out to lunch.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Sometimes 1 really wonder what the cabinet tells those backbenchers before their votes are held. If you want to heckle, if you want to make your comments, at least make them on the topic. The topic is to what extent should there be guaranteeing of small business loans, farm improvement and fishermen's loans.
If I might continue, I would like to point out the little significance this program has had as far as small business is concerned. I refer to the introductory remarks made by the Minister of State (Small Businesses) (Mr. Marchand). This program began during the Diefenbaker years, in 1961. The government does not make that particularly clear, but it boasts that some $480 million have been lent under the plan since 1961, and that 43,000 loans have been involved. If we use a little arithmetic, we find that the average loan was about $11,000. Is that not truly significant? Is that not a marvelous thing the government is taking credit for tonight? The government is taking credit for 43,000 loans over a period of 15 years for a total of $480 million. Let us put that into perspective.


Mr. Kaplan:: What is half a billion?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Kaplan) asks, "What is half a billion dollars?"


Robert Phillip Kaplan: To you.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: When we put it in terms of the total banking industry in Canada, we find at the end of February the total industry had assets of about $130 billion. Using a little arithmetic, that comes to approximately .4 per cent of the total banking operation in this country for which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) has some responsibility.
(Mr. Stevens.]
However, that is not the most significant thing. The Minister of State (Small Businesses) (Mr. Marchand) points out that in the last year alone $81 million went out. That is $81 million in relation to the $130 billion our banks are handling at the present time, and that is one-eighteenth of 1 per cent of the total bank assets which are being handled by our Canadian chartered banks for which the Minister of Finance has the ultimate responsibility. That is the perspective in which we have to start looking at the legislation which is before us.
Is the government giving the type of financial assistance which is warranted under the three programs which are described in this bill? Frankly, I do not think so. 1 believe greater assistance should be provided to small business people. They certainly would be justified in getting it.
I have listened to our socialist friends rant on, and how totally inconsistent they are. On the one hand the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) talks about the terrible problems business lives with, especially small business, as a result of government regulation, but what group in this House, perhaps other than the government itself, is advocating more regulation as far as business is concerned more than members of the New Democratic Party themselves? Yet they have the audacity when they speak on this bill to say that somehow there are too many government regulations. I agree with them. This Trudeau government imposes too many business regulations at the present time, but certainly the NDP will not start clearing it away.
Another thing 1 find amusing about the socialists is that they are always decrying big business. They say there are monopolies loose in our society. But what do they suggest? They suggest state monopoly. They say, basically, that as long as we put enterprise in the name of the state, that kind of monopoly is just great, that all our problems would immediately cease, and somehow or other we would be in that exalted state which the socialists like to describe-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I will permit a question when 1 am finished.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member ever be finished?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Speaking of these marvelous government monopolies to which the socialists like to refer-and I am sure the hon. member was wanting to ask about one-what finer example do we have of a government monopoly than the Post Office?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: What about the Bank of Western Canada?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell) knows something about that bank, and I wish he would stand up some day and say a little bit about it.
April 28, 1977

I would like to comment on that fine government monopoly known as the Post Office. Before this government got into the saddle the Post Office was running reasonably efficiently. In 1970, it made a little money. Its revenue and its expenditure were about $400 million, and 1 am sure the Postmaster General (Mr. Blais) would confirm that figure. However, what happened under the genius of this Trudeau Liberal government? A Post Office which was marginally profitable in 1970 has been brought to the point where now it has a $700 million deficit. In that period revenue in the Post Office went from about $400 million up to $600 million, but the expenditures went from $400 million to $1.3 billion. That was where the loss was incurred, and that was because of the utter ineptitude and irresponsible management of the Trudeau government.


John Gilbert: Tell that to Jack Horner.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I only mention that one example of a state monopoly. The socialists to my left are asking us to accept more and more of this in virtually every speech they make in this House.
1 have referred to the lot of the small businessman. I have pointed out that the minister stated that last year the total expenditure of banks under the act was $81 million. Farm loan activity amounted to $160 million. Fishermen got $10.5 million, and even the minister blushed when he had to mention that fishermen got less last year than they did the year before. The first point I want to make-


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



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening as a result of a question I asked and an answer given by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) on April 20, 1977, with respect to the position of the Treasury Board regarding its settlements in excess of the 8 per cent guidelines of the controls program in the public sector.
At the time the minister was unaware of the specific settlements to which I referred which exceeded the 8 per cent guidelines set down for all Canadians. For the minister's information I refer-and I have given notice to his office and to him-to some of the examples 1 raised at that time, namely, the welfare programs group which was given a raise of 8.66 per cent, financial administration employees whose raise ave-
Adjournment Debate
raged 9.08 per cent, the office equipment group which received an increase of 8.7 per cent, and the general technical workers who were allowed an 8.92 per cent salary increase. Generally speaking, these increases were given during the course of this year for the future year, that is to say, not in the first year but in a subsequent, second or third year of the anti-inflation program.
While there is no doubt that the four wage settlements are in excess of the 6 per cent plus 2 per cent wage increase guideline for the second year of the anti-inflation program, the Treasury Board has applied an exempting clause in the AIB regulations to allow a settlement higher than the basic rate. Section 48 of the regulations allows an experience adjustment factor of plus or minus 2 per cent to compensate for groups whose wages have either fallen behind or surged ahead of an agreed benchmark during the period preceding controls. The benchmark is obtained by adding 2 per cent to the rate of increase in the Consumer Price Index over either the previous two years or the period of the last collective agreement, whichever is greater. In simpler terms, if a group's wage increases were below inflation plus productivity, they are compensated. By this measure, the four groups were deemed to have fallen behind and were granted increases in excess of the basic guideline. Because this procedure is specified in the AIB regulations, the settlements appear to be within the AIB arithmetic guideline.
I expect the parliamentary secretary who this evening is to speak on behalf of the minister to say roughly what I just said. Perhaps I anticipated his answer; I wanted to make his job easier for him this evening. I note he is wearing a somewhat strange-looking T-shirt. 1 am fully aware of the facts, but 1 am anxious to hear his comments on this important matter. If the parliamentary secretary's answer is along the lines of the comments I made just now, I think it can be said that it would evade some issues which are central to the example the federal government ought to set for Canadians.
First, it should be noted that in none of the four cases on which the question was based does the experience adjustment factor approach the yearly maximum of 2 per cent. Since the minimum previous period to which the adjustment applies is two years, one can conclude that in none of these cases was the loss in excess of 1 per cent per year. In fact the highest experience adjustment entitlement was for the financial administration group at 1.5 per cent, who settled for a 9.05 per cent wage increase. In other words, at worst this group fell behind 0.75 per cent a year from the national benchmark. At no time did any of the four groups actually experience a reduction in purchasing power due to prices rising faster than wages.
The settlements in excess of the strict six plus two guideline are to compensate for these groups not obtaining in the past their share of the gains in national productivity. Whether the public service contributes to gains in productivity is questionable indeed. But beyond that, whether groups within the public

April 28, 1977
Adjournment Debate
service should be allowed to exceed the strict guideline when they have not lost purchasing power to inflation is even more questionable, particularly when the federal government ought to be setting the example.
The eight plus two experience calculation is, of course, the wage settlement ceiling under the AIB regulations. But these four cases indicate that the formula is also the wage settlement floor. There is no obligation, explicit or implicit, in the AIB regulations for employers to pay up to the maximum allowable. The reason that Treasury Board is willing to permit wage increases at or near the arithmetic guidelines appears to be that the policy of wage comparability still holds sway in the Treasury Board. Arguing that federal wage settlements have been below those in the private sector, the minister has stated a commitment to maintain "all elements of compensation in the public service ... in an equitable relationship with compensation levels in the private sector."
Maintaining the wage comparability policy throughout the controls program amounts to a signal to wage negotiators in the private sector that the dispute over income shares can continue. It was to halt such disputes that wage controls were introduced. And, indeed, the Anti-Inflation Board has indicated that it will be less tolerant in the second and third years of the program of wage requests appealing to such notions as historical relationship and comparability.
I think the parliamentary secretary is obliged to tell the House the government's position with respect to public sector settlements. Does he, speaking on behalf of the government, not feel that there is a responsibility resting on the government to show leadership in wage increase restraint? In view of increases which have been granted, is the strict six plus two upper guideline still to be enforced, or will the government take the position in future public service wage settlements that past settlements failed to compensate fully for increases in the cost of living? I wish the parliamentary secretary would answer my questions in this regard.
Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, I was rather surprised to note that the hon. member, in asking his question, spent four or five of his seven minutes answering his own question.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I know the answer. I wanted to hear the parliamentary secretary give his version of his answer.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Certainly 1 assure the hon. member that the government is well aware that on the part of the public there is considerable concern that wage settlements within the public service should not be a signal to the private sector to increase settlements. They should not increase settlements or set a lead in the rate of wage settlements. However, wage settlements within the public service should be comparable. Certainly public servants should not be made the scapegoat in the battle against inflation. We have no intention of doing that. However, we feel that there are a number of elements in the private sector which have regarded public service settlements as taking a lead. That is not the intention or the policy of the govern-
[Mr. Hnatyshyn.)
ment. On the contrary, we feel that public servants are entitled to comparable wages for comparable work, but settlements within the public sector ought not to set the pace for settlement within the private sector.
To comply with the anti-inflation program, the permissible increase in total compensation for a group for any guideline year is the sum of the following items: first, the basic protection factor, which is a percentage increase, represents the maximum that a group may obtain during the AIB program. This total compensation percentage increase varies from year to year. In the first program year, it is set at 8 per cent; in the second year it is set at 6 per cent maximum; in the third year it is set at 4 per cent maximum.
Second, the national productivity factor, which is added to the basic protection factor, is equated to an estimated annual increase in the Canadian productivity which is set at 2 per cent for each year of the program.
Third, the experience adjustment factor results from the previous collective agreement for a group. Movements in the total compensation for that group should compare to the movements in the consumer price index for the same period of time, that is, the length of the previous agreement. The maximum value of the experience adjustment factor is set at 2 per cent for each year of the program and, in its calculation, may result in a plus or minus 2 per cent depending on the extent to which the consumer price index has increased compared to total compensation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. 1 regret to interrupt the parliamentary secretary, but his time has expired.


HEALTH-POSSIBILITY OF BANNING PRODUCTS IN ADDITION TO SACCHARIN THAT MAY BE DANGEROUS TO HEALTH
Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, on March 22 I questioned the arbitrary decision of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) to ban saccharin, a ban without reference to any studies on humans or without approval of this House. It had all the earmarks of a bureaucratic decision. It was based on a pretext, I maintain a phony pretext, of science. It was forced on this nation.
There are many obvious reasons to distrust the ban. The pretense of scientific rationale has made Canadians the joke of the international medical community. The non-medical community would also be amused if they were not, like myself, so angered.
The ban reflects the whole ridiculousness and arrogance of a certain few senior bureaucrats. It is a decision that will endanger the lives of 400,000 Canadian diabetics, tens of thousands of victims of hypoglycemia and possibly ten million or 12 million citizens with propensity to overweight or obesity with all their health hazards.
My question was, and I quote:
In view of the fact that excessive amounts of saccharin have been found dangerous to rats and it is to be banned for human consumption, and it should be
April 28, 1977

noted that humans have built-in protection in that they would drown before contacting cancer using comparable amounts, will the minister advise the House whether we can expect his medical researchers to push ahead to ban chocolate, ice cream, cheese, liver, milk, eggs, coconut, sugar, salt and all other products that induce high cholesterol and heart disease to humans, even though we are not sure if it is safe for rats? ... Further, will he also consider banning cars, also dangerous to humans, although we have no statistics on rat mortality?
It is interesting to note that the minister at that time referred to the statements of his officials. That is where it is at. The officials make the decisions in this country. The public fears the officials, not the members of parliament. They have to follow the whims of these people.
The hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) asked why cigarettes had not been banned since there is conclusive evidence they induced cancer in people. Constituents have asked me the same question. Petitions have poured in, by way of the distinguished radio personality, Roy Jacks, urging that the ban not be invoked.
In reply to my letters on behalf of constituents and these petitioners I received the most ridiculous reply, dated April 22, obviously written in justification for his decision by the official who apparently provides the answers for the minister when the estimates are before the committee. If I can find it, I will read part of it into the record:
As to cigarette smoking, unfortunately, however, a ban on tobacco simply would not have the desired effect. Cigarette smoking represents a form of addiction which has become over the years not only tolerated by large segments of our sociey but also has become incorporated into the lifestyle of many of our citizens.
That is an answer which is a total evasion. Yet they ban something which is essential to the nation and the protection of thousands of people.
Then again, the word "scientific" is used very loosely. It is remarkable they should use the word "may" and still call it a scientific reply. It is hardly scientific not to use absolutes. The excuse for the ban is the protection of the public. We once feared the invasion of the privacy of the nation's bedrooms but it now seems quite acceptable for the Department of National Health and Welfare not only to invade the privacy of the nation's dinner table, but to endanger the lives of many who need and want sweetened foods. They say, "Take heart, dear one. Oh, we care. Just pick up your saccharin tablets or powder from the pharmacist after October." But those who need or want saccharin ask, as I ask, where they will get the sweetness and joy from a dull, restrictive diet when they can no longer purchase diet pop, candy, cookies, canned foods, chocolate, gum and all the rest?
The experiments on which the ban was based are treated, and quite properly treated, with contempt by most of the public and by many thinking medical people, including the British and Swiss medical associations. What is so disgraceful about this whole situation is that those who literally survive because of saccharin, and have done so for many years, have been frightened by superficial reports with regard to findings which are not even worthy of discussion.
Adjournment Debate
Rats were given massive doses of saccharin. The experiments in Canada and in the United States began with 5 per cent of the rats' daily diet by weight. When there was not much evidence on which to support what would seem to be a determined effort to prove that artificial sweeteners were dangerous, dosages were increased by 50 per cent to 7.5 per cent on 100 rats. In the first generation three out of 100 rats developed some sign or form of carcinoma. It is remarkable, I realize now, that of their offspring only ten out of 100 developed it. If they gave the same dosage to the baby rats it meant that naturally those rats would get very sick.
To get an equivalent amount, a human being would have to consume 800 cans of soda pop for the rest of his or her life each day, or ingest about 10,000 grains of saccharin a day. Honourable members will see the bottle I am holding up. It contains 1,000 half-grain capsules. They would have to take 20 of these a day and that would be the equivalent of 40,000 teaspoons a day in sweeteners. How ridiculous that experiment was! There is no way in which a human being can consume the equivalent of what the rats had to take. I think the sugar combines have been a part of this whole thing-


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


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments in the short time available to me. As the honourable member has said, the experiment was done. It was done fairly thoroughly. It indicated that cancer was induced by the use of saccharin on rats. This is the normal, medical, scientific way of doing experiments. I am asking the honourable member: would she prefer that the experiments be done on humans?
There are many scientists who say there is no safe level of carcinogenic materials. Most scientists accept the idea that whatever level is used in animals should be at least 5,000 to 10,000 times as great, in order to be safe, than the normal dosage for humans. In this particular case a maximum dose for humans would likely be only 200 times as great. There is a good deal of scientific evidence to say that this would, in effect, be carcinogenic. There are some cases in humans which would indicate that this may very well have been the reason. I ask the hon. member if she would prefer our medical authorities, our health protection branch and so on to say, "Well, we can ignore that kind of thing". We have a health protection branch, and it is there to help protect Canadians from things that are unsafe. When they get these kinds of results, are they expected to say, -"Well, we can ignore them. It does not matter; a few cases of cancer are neither here nor there"?
There are some substitutes being examined. As a result of this, we will be using another type of sugar fructose which will be much more common and will help Canadians who will be much better because of this. I have not heard a great deal of fight in the business community against this. I have talked to a number of businessmen who feel they have been treated fairly and who feel they have been given enough time to make the
5118

April 28, 1977
Adjournment Debate
necessary changes. In general, we can say that this is a good stand taken in the interests of better health.
I am sorry the hon. member was not at a caucus which we held in order to go through this thing more carefully. At that caucus, we gave a fair amount of information on the kind of maximum doses that one could expect.


INCOME TAX-EXEMPTIONS FOR MAINTENANCE ORDERS- DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THOSE MADE FOR COMMON LAW SPOUSES
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, when I rise at such a time, on such an occasion, and in such vast company, I realize that being a member of an opposition party can sometimes not only be a lonely job but can also be a singular job.
The task that brings me here this evening relates to something that I thought had been covered some time back, but which was not. This is about a young black person who worked in construction and who came to me with his income tax request. It appeared that a number of years back he had entered into a common law relationship, as a result of which he had two children. He had broken up that relationship and is now in a regular marriage, and he has other obligations from the regular marriage. Income tax law does not recognize the fact that he is now paying something like $1,700 or $1,800 a year under a court order made by a provincial judge in Nova Scotia. This was a court order in favour of the common law wife and the two children of the first relationship. It shook me up, I must say, because I thought, given the circumstances of a court order and given the circumstances of a regular liaison that had terminated, that there should somehow be some income tax relief. I checked into it by asking a question the other day of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) and having his reply. Then I suddenly realized that the income tax law is deficient in this respect.
I say deficient because I always thought we had been told in this House that the income tax law was not one that drew moral lines on situations where a buck was a buck was a buck. If you earned it by prostitution, then you were still in a situation where you were gainfully employed. You might have been employed distastefully, but you were gainfully employed and had to make your fair accounting toward the nation's revenues.
1 hope, if I am a little short in my question or the statement of the question involved, that nobody will look at the parliamentary secretary if he has to be a little long with his answer. But we should have an answer. As I say, I thought we had solved this problem a number of years ago when we dealt with income tax reform. Obviously we have not done so.
I simply make the argument that where a court of the land has made an order against a person requiring that person to pay to another person a certain amount of money for the

upkeep of the children of a relationship that has broken down, then due regard should be had to that at income tax time.
May I also make this argument, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the parliamentary secretary, and also through you, Mr. Speaker, to the country, that if we are going to draw any puritanical or moral differentiations between regular marriages which have broken down and the phenomenon of the sixties and the seventies, namely, common law relationships- while common law relationships have existed in the past I think they are much more common now than they used to be- then God help us all.
I once appeared before the Appeal Court of Nova Scotia to argue before Their Lordships that there was a vast difference between what I call a common law relationship where two people were free to marry but had chosen not to and instead lived together-that is, they had gone through no regular civil form of marriage-and a relationship which is called common law where couples live together but one is not free to marry. I pointed out to Their Lordships that this constituted the state of being a concubine and a paramour. After they had recovered their breath at this remarkable fact and had checked their ancient law books, they found out that I was telling it exactly like it was.
I am not dealing with concubines and paramours tonights; I am dealing with what is strictly and factually a common law relationship which has broken up. If I had to deal with the other situation, then I would make the same claim. Where there are court orders in effect and a relationship has clearly been established, then there should also be income tax relief. I hope the heart of the parliamentary secretary is bigger than the treasury, but nevertheless I now await his answer.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I have an answer here, but before I begin to give it I want to say that perhaps my heart is bigger that the treasury. The official answer I am about to read, which is a statement in defence of the present legal situation, does not really deter me from reflecting quite positively on the kind of situation to which the hon. member referred, particularly where individuals live together because one of them is not free to translate a common law relationship into a more binding and permanent, legally established relationship.
I want now on behalf of the government to indicate that the income tax treatment of maintenance payments arising out of a common law relationship is one aspect of the matter of appropriate tax treatment of common law relationships.
The tax rules for common law arrangements have presented difficulties for many years. However, as income tax laws must be general in application, they must be based on standards which can be easily identified for administration and enforcement of the law. There is no question of any intention to reflect in our tax laws any moral judgment whatever.
Deductions or exemptions in respect of a spouse are restricted to a legally married spouse because proof of such a marriage is easily obtainable and the spouse is recognized by law for all general purposes. Serious problems would arise in
April 28, 1977

seeking to determine a spouse of a taxpayer on the basis of a period of cohabitation. An effort by officials to identify such a spouse could prove offensive and objectionable to taxpayers who could charge the government with meddling in their private lives.
I wonder if the hon. member might not agree that individuals who choose to live together-and I am talking about those who do have the option of marrying-without the benefit of marriage, may well be opting for a relationship with absolutely no legal implications. Well meaning governments should not deprive them of that right. In a society where the status of
Adjournment Debate
women has legally or virtually reached equality with that of men and is socially moving rapidly toward that desirable goal, it is not unreasonable to regard a common law relationship as a conscious decision of both partners-and again I refer to a relationship in which both partners have the choice of marrying or not-to be treated for all purposes as single individuals.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 10:28 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
80012 -45V2

Friday, April 29, 1977