1977-01-27

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the government of Canada has invested through DREE a substantial amount of money in Boeing of Canada Limited, in Winnipeg, Manitoba to stimulate growth and jobs and yet in a counterproductive move the National Research Council has restricted the use of fibre-reinforced plastic bathroom fixtures, including bathtubs which will not catch fire, and this has seriously hindered development and growth at the Boeing plant in Winnipeg which manufactures these products, I would like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Masniuk):
That this House instruct the Minister of Public Works to have the National Research Council remove the restriction on fibre-reinforced plastic bathroom fixtures by removing sentence number 3.1.4.5 (10) of the 1977 National Building Code.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43 such a motion cannot be presented for debate in the House without its unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NAME OF ITALIMPIANTI AGENT IN SALE OF REACTOR TO ARGENTINA-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Considering that in a letter dated December 17, 1976, and tabled in a House committee yesterday, Italimpianti flatly turned down a request by the government of Canada, made via the chairman of AECL, for the name of the agent used in the sale of a CANDU reactor to Argentina, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the government reassert its right to know the name of the agent and have a description of his activities, this to be done by direct communication by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to the director of Italimpianti.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask leave to present a motion concerning a matter that is urgent. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House urges the Solicitor General to inform, on a confidential basis, each of the persons whose name was on the list attached to a letter written by the then Solicitor General on June 15, 1971, concerning a so-called Extra-Parliamentary Opposition, of the existence of the said letter so that these persons may have the opportunity to take steps to clear their names with respect to the charges made against them, it being the view of this House that the laying of charges in this way was contrary to the civil liberties all Canadians are supposed to enjoy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In the television interview which the hon. gentleman gave to the CBC after his speech to the Canadian

Oral Questions
Club in Toronto he made reference to the consideration he was giving to setting up a price monitoring mechanism similar to the Food Prices Review Board. Can the minister tell us how mature that consideration is, how close he is to announcing a mechanism of that kind, and whether or not such a mechanism will deal with the monitoring of profits and wages as well?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: indicated, as I have done a number of times, that this is a subject about which I have been talking to individual members of the business community and about which I shall be talking to representatives of organized labour and to the finance ministers next week. This is a concept I am putting before them. I have made reference to a role expanded on that of the Food Prices Review Board; I think a comparison might equally be drawn with the Council on Wage and Price Stability in the United States. To respond to the final part of the question, it would really be intended to deal with all possible increases which could have an economic effect of an inflationary kind. It could cover prices, wages and other judgments by the private sector which could have an inflationary effect.


Charles Joseph Clark: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. These private discussions with business, labour and the provinces are well enough, but I think we all know that the two largest provinces in the country, Quebec and Ontario, have announced plans for a public forum or public discussion of post-control policy and means of dealing with the problems to which the minister has referred. Can the hon. gentleman tell us whether the federal government is now giving any serious consideration as a matter of priority to setting up some kind of nationally sponsored forum which could draw together all elements in the country to discuss post-control or decontrol policy, and, if so, could he indicate what kind of timetable is being considered?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: A meeting of that sort, general in the sense of involving the major economic decision-makers in the provinces, organized labour and business as well as the federal government, has been the subject of discussion. I can say to the hon. gentleman it has drawn mixed reviews from those with whom it has been discussed. While we would consider this possibility and discuss it with other parties, we want to be certain that the outcome of such a meeting would be positive before we would go ahead with such a proposal.


THE BUDGET
Charles Joseph Clark: A further question to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister in a position today to indicate fairly specifically when we may expect a new budget?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I can
perhaps be a little more specific than my parliamentary secre-

tary was the other day. It will be some time after the end of February and before the beginning of June.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING NEW GUIDELINES-REQUEST FOR MEASURES TO CREATE JOBS
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. On Monday the hon. member for York-Simcoe asked whether we could expect new directives for the AIB which would be designed to encourage private investment job creation in Canada. There is no doubt about the need for this sort of thing, and in light of the minister's statements and statements made through the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the AIB can the minister now indicate whether new guidelines or directives are now under consideration for early implementation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman was probably referring more to a headline or report in the newspaper rather than the remarks that I actually made in my speech. I would not envisage any substantial change in the guidelines, either on the wages or profit side, before the end of the program. In particular, I would not see a specific change in the profit guidelines at this point. I was referring, from the profit creation standpoint, to the long term rather than to an immediate change in the guidelines.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In his June budget the Minister of Finance promised the creation of some 250,000 new jobs. On a yearly average, as I understand it, only about 210,000 jobs have been created, so there has been a shortfall of approximately 40,000 jobs. On a December 1975 to 1976 basis, only 76,000 new jobs were created. In light of the high percentage of job vacancies existing, which means in effect that there are not enough jobs for those who seek them, can the minister advise the House whether any new initiatives are being contemplated in order to deal with this very serious situation? In other words, would he see that jobs are created particularly by the private sector for those who are actively seeking them?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, that would be a good, short and accurate description of the kind of thinking that we are putting into our budget preparations.
January 27, 1977


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. I should like to ask the Solicitor General a question with reference to the RCMP investigation of AECL activities in Argentina. Has he yet had any report from the RCMP about their investigation and what they have found, and can he give such results to the House? If he has not had a report, can he tell us when he expects to have one?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the investigation has been referred to the RCMP on the advice of officials of the Department of Justice. The RCMP investigation into the matter is an ongoing one but I am not in a position to reveal what progress has been made to date. I should add that the RCMP is pursuing the matter actively.


James McPhail Gillies: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the Solicitor General or the RCMP given any consideration to broadening the investigation beyond the terms of reference which apparently are now in place to take account of all foreign transactions that involve AECL in the sale of nuclear reactors?


Francis Fox: At the moment, Mr. Speaker, no consideration is being given to widening the inquiry. The RCMP has been given a fairly specific mandate to inquire into the transaction to which the hon. member refers. I suppose that if during the course of that inquiry material or evidence were obtained which indicated that the inquiry ought to be broadened then, of course, consideration would be given to that at that time.


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In a letter from Mr. Shaul Eisenberg to the chairman of AECL dated January 21 of this year and tabled today before the committee, Mr. Eisenberg notes that he volunteered to accept the new terms for his agent's fees as outlined in the agreement of March, 1976 in part because he was being given the contract as the agent should a second reactor be sold to South Korea. My question to the minister is this. Would he inform the House whether AECL was obligated in advance of March, 1976 to hire Mr. Eisenberg as the agent for the second reactor, and what are the terms and conditions of this new agreement?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that there was any undertaking prior to March of last year, if that is the date to
Oral Questions
which the hon. member alluded, the AECL would use Mr. Eisenberg should AECL be authorized to quote on a new reactor sale. As to the second part of this question regarding details, I think that information has already been presented to the committee.


REASON FOR HIRING MR. EISENBERG TO SELL SECOND REACTOR TO SOUTH KOREA
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the information concerning the terms and conditions of the second sale has not been presented. If what the minister is saying in the first part of his answer is that there was no obligation to Mr. Eisenberg until March of last year, then is he suggesting to the House that when Mr. Eisenberg agreed to come down from $20 million to something just in excess of $18 million he was really doing so because he was being hired to sell a future reactor and could, therefore, more than recoup his loss? Can the minister explain to the House why it was found necessary for the government, through AECL, to hire an agent to sell a second reactor once the acceptance of the first reactor had been established in the country?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think if the hon. member had been following the testimony before the committee he would have realized by now that an agent in this kind of transaction is a very important aspect of securing the transaction. I am told that competition in South Korea for a reactor was vicious, that the Canadian CANDU system was one which other competitors feared, and this led those competitors to make every kind of effort to blacken and smear the character of the Canadian system. I believe that occurred also in Argentina. I believe the then president of AECL made that very clear in his testimony this morning.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I read with care the letter from Mr. Eisenberg that was tabled in the committee this morning. In that letter Mr. Eisenberg makes the case that an agent or someone performing that function has to establish in advance the acceptance of a complex apparatus such as a reactor. However, once that has been done in respect of the sale of a reactor for the first time, and the country buying it is happy, why in heaven's name would it be necessary to pay a commission to the extent of millions of dollars to make a second sale? Would not the country buy the second one because it was happy with the first?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I do not think this is the time to enter into a long discourse about the nature of commercial transactions. I am sure that if the hon. member is really sincere about finding the answer to that question, if he does not know it already, he can find the opportunity to put it to officers of AECL appearing before the committee.

January 27, 1977
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
POSSIBILITY OF DREDGING ST. LAWRENCE AT ISLE D'ORL£ANS
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
Considering that the federal Department of Transport has undertaken to keep the depth of the channel at 41 feet along the Isle d'Orleans in the St. Lawrence to allow for the establishment of a refinery of Golden Eagle Canada Ltd. at St. Romuald, Quebec, and that the channel is now only 38 feet deep, could the minister tell the House whether his department will do the necessary dredging to keep the channel 41 feet deep at that place?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, we had a close look at the question of the cost of the additional dredging to obtain a 41-foot level for the first time and drew some conclusion in terms of the cost-benefits that were involved, that they related uniquely to the operations of one particular company. Accordingly, we entered into discussions with that company which have not led us yet to conclude that the additional dredging should go ahead.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, is it true as maintained by the company that the department will compel Golden Eagle to incur the costs for dredging farther down than a 38-foot depth? If so, is it the usual policy of the government to set such conditions and can the minister give an example of such a case elsewhere in Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is quite common when construction or improvement is being done and justified on the basis of the direct benefit to a particular commercial enterprise to require the appropriate payment either immediately or over a period of time by that enterprise out of the benefits which are conferred upon it.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Yesterday the minister appeared to be attempting to justify the actions of his colleague with respect to blacldisting activities. Is the Solicitor General willing to tell the House whether such a list, with the accompanying letter, constitutes normal government practice or was this an isolated case?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, once again people are talking in terms of a blacklist which I think is very misleading. Some members of the opposition had a letter

in their possession and read it into the record yesterday, knowing full well it was not a blacklist. As the Prime Minister indicated at his press conference yesterday, some of the people involved are still in the employ of the federal government. I have also stated that I have not caused to be circulated any such type of list since I have become Solicitor General. I must say, however, it is the duty of any solicitor general of this or any government to bring to the attention of his colleagues any matters relating to the security of state documents.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Solicitor General failed to answer the question of whether this was an isolated case. Regardless of what he calls it, will he inform the House by what criteria names find their way on to this particular list or is it a case of alleged guilt by alleged association? Can he also tell the House what he meant by the term "watched with more than normal care"? Does this imply police surveillance?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I never used those words in the House. I think the hon. member is referring to something that was said by his own colleague during the course of the meeting.


Some hon. Members:: It is in the letter.


Francis Fox: As the hon. member knows what has been referred to are letters between members of Her Majesty's Privy Council which are privileged, as is any conversation between members of the Privy Council. I should like to add that the whole matter was handled, as I said yesterday, with the utmost discretion in order not to hurt the reputations of the people who were involved.


INQUIRY AS TO PROOF OF WRONGDOING BY EMPLOYEES ON BLACKLIST
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Solicitor General told the House that "there was concern at the time that some government employees might be deliberately releasing government classified information", with the letter of June 1971 stating that it represented "a conscious attempt to use the knowledge and influence gained by their employment with the federal government to further their own needs." Will the Solicitor General inform the House whether the report delivered to the then solicitor general contained any concrete proof that the employees listed were in fact engaged in a conscious subterfuge?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite clear that once one accepts the necessity of any such system to have some sort of security service in operation, it is quite natural that the investigative reports of these agencies, just as in the case of investigative reports of the RCMP on the criminal side, are not made public because some of the infor-
January 27, 1977

mation could be prejudicial to the people involved and affect their reputations.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Could he inform the House whether he has had any discussions with either the Premier of Nova Scotia, the Minister of Development of that province, or any officials of MAGI with respect to the widely reported dismissal of Mr. Scott McNutt, senior vice-president and a member of the board of directors of that joint federal-provincial group?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, of course I have discussed many subjects with the premier of the province on several occasions, but with regard to the specific matter brought up by the hon. member, I do not feel that I should intervene in the daily operations of that company. However, I am aware of some of the statements made recently about its vice-president. I shall probably have occasion in the near future of at least meeting the minister responsible for development in Nova Scotia, for a meeting is to be held in the next few days at which time I can make it a point to bring up the matter.


J. Michael Forrestall: I should like to ask the minister whether he is indicating at this point that he has no direct knowledge himself, nor do any of his officials, of Mr. McNutt's dismissal from that Crown corporation for cause or for any other reason, and if that is what the minister is saying, would he use his offices, indeed exercise his responsibility with respect to MAGI for the purpose of discovering for his information and for the edification of the House, the reason Mr. McNutt has been dismissed.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, with regard to Mr. McNutt, I should say that the decision must be reached by the directors of the company; I do not feel it behoves me, as a minority shareholder of the company, to decide for its members. I shall therefore have to wait until I know more about the decisions made by the board of directors of the company.


J. Michael Forrestall: Would the minister then indicate to the House that he has no knowledge that Mr. McNutt in fact has been dismissed or let go?
Oral Questions


Marcel Lessard: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not have knowledge of his being dismissed but, as the hon. member has already mentioned, there was a rumour in the press yesterday and the day before to that effect. We will know more about it in a few days, I suppose.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Frank Maine (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that the Canadian government has invested capital in the form of loans and grants to Bowmar of Canada, and that this company of pocket calculator fame has had capital siphoned off by the bankrupt United States parent company, Bowmar Industry Company of Connecticut, is the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce taking any measures to prevent this activity, which has triggered the possible closing down of Bowmar of Canada's excellent research and development capacity in Canada?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of this problem. I am taking note of it and I shall look into it and report to the hon. member as soon as possible.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Solicitor General. In view of the fundamental principles of civil liberties which are involved, will the Solicitor General now undertake to inform each of the persons whose name is on the list attached to the letter of June 15, 1971, that his name is there so that these persons may have the opportunity to defend themselves against the charges in that letter? I suggest, of course, that this information be given to them on a confidential basis.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, there was no question of eliminating or blacklisting anyone included in that list.


An hon. Member:: What was it, tattletale grey?


Francis Fox: It was rather the responsibility of the departments in question, as I indicated yesterday, to evaluate the recommendations that were made to them by the then solicitor

Oral Questions
general whose recommendations were to ensure that the people understood that they could not be in the government of Canada and have split loyalties at the same time. The departments were then charged taking the necessary measures to ensure that this was carried out.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since there is no indication that these persons were informed at all about the letter, may I ask the minister if he will now take the necessary steps to ensure that there is nothing on the files of these public servants to the effect that they were included in this correspondence, even if it requires the destruction of the list itself?


Francis Fox: As I indicated to the House yesterday, there is no such list in circulation at the moment. At that time it was used with utmost discretion and there were no consequences other than those I outlined to the House yesterday which resulted in communications to the various ministers.


SUGGESTION LETTER CONCERNING BLACKLIST CONSTITUTES BASIS FOR CRIMINAL LIBEL ACTION
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Solicitor General if the hon. gentleman is taking into consideration the possibility that the contents of that letter constitute a basis for a prima facie case of criminal libel and that members of the government have no more right that anyone else to conceal evidence. An opportunity should be given to those people, if they wish, to launch such criminal proceedings.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, if anyone wishes to talk about the disclosure of the contents of a possible letter between ministers, he must take complete responsibility for it and for possibly affecting the reputation of some persons if that occurs, which I do not believe is the case. This responsibility will fall on those who decide to release certain information that was of a confidential nature.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Garbage.


INDUSTRY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As the Canadian footwear industry has been severely damaged in recent months by imports from low wage countries, and as the minister informed me two months ago that he was giving serious consideration to the imposition of quotas against these imports from low wage countries as a means of assisting this hard pressed industry, could he advise me when he expects to announce these quotas, and will he also inform us what percentage of previous imports will be allowed in the future?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, officials of my department met representatives of the footwear industry or communicated with them last week. We are trying to find a way to satisfy the Shoe Manufacturers' Association. It is a very delicate problem, but I am also told that one of the three plants that were closed in Ontario has now been bought out and production will resume soon.


FINANCE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Now that we as a country have become the world's number one borrower in foreign bond markets, with our provinces, municipalities and other concerns having borrowed $8 billion last year, about 15 per cent of the total international borrowing by all countries combined, would the minister indicate if he or his department are concerned about the ongoing costs of this foreign debt which offsets any trade gain that might be made in the merchandise field, and is he concerned about the fact that much of the debt matures within five to seven years?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: course, there should be an ongoing concern about contracting over a long period substantial liabilities abroad, but given the economic circumstances which the OECD countries have been experiencing generally in the last eighteen months to two years, it is probably inevitable that we would have taken on this particular obligation.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is again for the Minister of Finance. In view of his stated concern, and as such foreign borrowing confirms that we are living beyond our means and borrowing to do it, and as the borrowing now represents over 4 per cent of our gross national product compared with one per cent in 1973, would the minister indicate if he intends to take steps, through persuasion or otherwise, to temper this mortgaging of our future to cover today's spending which includes so much in consumer goods?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I have no intention at present of preventing the provinces or the private sector from borrowing abroad. Of course, the suggestion put forward by the hon. member would push up the cost of borrowing for the provinces, municipalities and private institutions.


REQUEST FOR ESTIMATE OF GOVERNMENT BORROWING FOR CURRENT YEAR
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Speaking about the high cost of borrowing, with federal government borrowing last year of some $2.7 billion, would the minister indicate if he
[Mr. FoxJ

expects this year's borrowing at the federal level will be even higher, and specifically, would he confirm the current estimate that the federal treasury may be looking for $3.3 billion in the current year?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Actually the federal government has met its borrowing requirements for the current year which, as the hon. member knows, expires on March 31.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Calendar year I am talking about.


TRANSPORT
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. What plans has the minister developed to ensure that foreign registered ships or flags of convenience ships meet Canadian safety standards? I am informed by the minister's officials that present inspection systems frustrate inspections because of their inadequacy.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we do have firm rules and regulations in the law concerning the standards of construction, equipment and manpower on vessels approaching and entering Canadian waters. In addition, we have been developing some of the most advanced systems for making contact with those vessels, and we have such a system operating on the east coast, the Ecareg system, whereby the vessel approaching Canadian waters is required to make its presence and intentions known, and there is a system then of determining the way in which the vessels meet the standards laid down.


An hon. Member:: For 200 miles?


Mr. Fairweather:: Would the minister consider using some of the $40 million marine disaster oil clean up fund to augment the present inspection system, which I think the minister would also agree is inadequate?


Otto Emil Lang: That is an interesting suggestion. It might require a change in the legislation to make use of those particular funds in that way, but I will certainly look into the question.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture, and it relates to the long
Oral Questions
awaited announcement of the 1976 slaughter cattle stabilization program.
Since the 2,500 head maximum contravenes the main thrust and intent of Bill C-50, and since a very firm and definite commitment was given to beef producers by departmental officials as early as last July that no maximum limits would be incorporated into this program, would the minister take advantage of this early opportunity to remove this maximum upper limit to ensure equality to all beef producers?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker,
I am not aware of any such thing being stated, but from early last year and even from the Agriculture Committee proceedings one can find that we discussed this at length with members of that committee. The suggestion was made that I make these payments quarterly, and it is not new for this type of thing to be decided, that is, maximums on payments. If it is truly a family operation there can be three payments made, so there could be a total payment of three times 2,500 head, which would be substantial, and I think that would take in the vast majority of beef producers in Canada. It may eliminate some hugh corporate operations, but the vast majority of family farms would be included.
The hon. member said this was long awaited. The act says we have to make this payment at the end of the year. We do not make the payment before the end of the year, so that the final calculations even for the month of December are not finished yet. However, we thought we should go ahead and make the announcement anyhow.


John Wise: Do I understand the minister to be indicating that partnerships and multi-farm corporations would each be eligible to collect the 2,500 maximum limit on the deficiency payment?


Eugene Whelan: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the same as we have done with apples and the same as we will be doing for potato payments, where it is shown that it is a truly family operation, that there really is not a corporate set up and where it is shown that partnerships really exist.


BASIS ON WHICH COW-CALF SUPPORT PROGRAM ESTABLISHED
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question deals with the cow-calf support program which the minister recently announced for 1977. Can he explain whether it will be set up on the same basis as the current beef stabilization program or under a different arrangement for subsidy?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, it would be quite difficult to explain it in detail here, but we are working this out with the provinces because it has to be worked out with the provinces. They have programs present, and our program differs from theirs. It is not going to be very easy to dovetail and to make them work together for the coming year of 1977, but from what we have heard already from the provinces, we can look forward to working with them in complete harmony.

January 27, 1977
Oral Questions FISHERIES


REQUEST FOR SPECIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THOSE USING SIDE TRAWLERS
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. The minister was advised by the Lake Group Limited on January 13 that they would have to close their fish plant at Gaultois in Burin-Burgeo, Newfoundland, on January 31 for an indefinite period in view of the financial losses which they are suffering due to the lack of fish for their side trawlers and because the new fishery management scheme does not provide the opportunity to catch more fish this year. January 31 is just two days away. I understand that they could continue operating if the minister would amend his fishery management plan or his special assistance program for side trawlers. There are 220 people who will lose their jobs on Monday. Can the minister tell us whether he is going to announce a special assistance plan for side trawlers or amend the fishery management plan so that plants with side trawlers can catch fish?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I have already had some discussions about side trawlers with the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The problem of the side trawlers is a very real one because of their physical limitations with regard to fishing at great distances. We are trying to find a solution to accommodate this segment of the fleet, but at the moment, with the type of fishery which is open to them, I do not yet have a solution. I am still hoping that we will come up with an accommodation for them.


PROPOSAL TO INCREASE QUOTAS FOR TRAWLERS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: 
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In light of the response of the minister, has he given any thought to the proposal of decreasing the quotas

which have been allocated to Canadians in the far northern areas I just mentioned, namely, Hamilton bank inlet, and giving that quota to foreign ships while deleting from the foreign fleet operating within our 200 miles zone some of their quotas and adding that allocation of red fish and flounder, for example, to the Canadian fishermen so that we may see our fleets operating on a longer basis within the new zone?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I could answer the hon. member's rather complicated question in the time allocated to me. I wish to make it clear that we have offered side trawlers financial assistance so that they could in fact move farther away than they traditionally have.
As for the alternative of trading quotas in the northern districts for others, I should tell the hon. member that where side trawlers have access-Canada has most of the redfish quota, if not all, with the possible exception of some incidental catch-our traditional resistance to going up into the far north at this time of the year has left an important and rather rich quota to foreign fleets. We are taking a larger share of this quota, but at the moment the economics of building 15 million trawlers to go up into that region are obviously not favourable to us.


SEALS-ACTION TO PREVENT INTERFERENCE WITH HUNT-STATUS OF CASE AGAINST BRIAN DAVIES
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: 
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the repeated statements of the Minister of Agriculture and his predecessors, that unless the potato growers organize they may as well not come back to Ottawa for help in poor market years, I should like to know if the minister still means business? The question is crucial, Mr. Speaker, because of the current serious attempt to establish a potato plan in New Brunswick and because some people in the province, speaking for the National Farmers Union, have discarded the minister's statement as a hollow threat and hogwash.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Stanfield:: The minister of hogwash.


Eugene Whelan: -all I can say is that those who think it is easy for me to get money from Treasury Board for those programs should attend some of our meetings. I do not think it is necessary to put money into all kinds of farm organizations, because those organizations can organize themselves and do a better and more orderly marketing job of their products, which will not cost the taxpayers of this nation any money. At the same time they can make sure the producers get a reasonable price.


COW-CALF SUPPORT PROGRAM-REASON FOR REDUCED PAYMENT TO PROVINCES WHICH HAVE PROGRAMS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct another question to the Minister of Agriculture who apparently discriminates against some farmers, inasmuch as his recently announced cow-calf program will only provide 50 per cent of the deficiency payment to those provinces which had the foresight to establish their own programs. I ask why he is discriminating against provinces which have set up their own program, and why he is allowing only a 50 per cent pay-out in those cases?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I was talking to the minister of agriculture of the member's own province, and dealt with the treasury board of that province. The minister was elated when I told him what we would do to assist the province in their program. 1 also spoke with the minister of agriculture of Alberta. I look forward to the time when this will be a totally federal program, which will help those provinces which do not have this kind of program and which are not as wealthy as some of the other provinces.


INCREASE IN COMMUNITY PASTURE RATES-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I wish the minister would begin to answer our questions. May I
Oral Questions
direct a supplementary question to him? Since farmers received notice a few weeks ago that community pasture rates under PFRA are to go up over 30 per cent this year, I wonder if the minister will take the farmers' case to the Anti-Inflation Board, or to the minister responsible for DREE, in order to have those 30 per cent increases rolled back.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker,
I am not aware of those rate increases. If they have taken place you may be sure that I shall make representations to everyone concerned.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, Since, as I need not remind the minister, the first rebellion we had in western Canada took place on the Red River over the federal government's attacking the survey system, will the minister advise, in a public statement, that it is not necessary for the Canadian Wheat Board to change the acreage and mileage system in western Canada, in other words, the survey system, to make it work more efficiently and conveniently?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, obviously, certain changes in measurements with regard to miles and acres are not required. It is true that in the general move toward conversion to the metric system the grain industry, including the Canadian Wheat Board and various components of it as well as elevator companies and farm-owned ones have worked effectively to adjust to the new measurements. With passage of the law now before the House this process will go forward and measurements dealing with the actual handling of grain will then take place in the metric system.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did I understand the minister to say that he will not consider assuring the farmers of western Canada that, in the move toward metric conversion, there will not be an attack on the system of surveys used in western Canada, that is, on the system of acres and miles?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, obviously, there is no such element involved. That should become perfectly clear if one simply reads the law.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Then let the minister make that public statement.
2440

January 27, 1977
Oral Questions INDIAN AFFAIRS


BUILDING OF KITIMAT PIPELINE OVER TERRITORY OCCUPIED BY NATIVES-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is related to the proposed building of the Kitimat pipeline. Since the lands in question are occupied by several native Indian nations and the proposed pipeline may have deleterious effects on the environment, salmon stocks, herring fisheries, bottom fish of the ocean and sea vegetation, I ask if the minister has received representation from the Pacific Northwest Native Indians about this problem and if he has met with the provincial government to discuss the matter? If so, can he report on the progress of those discussions?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, yes, I have received representations from the Indians in the area as well as from the hon. member for Skeena, and they are under consideration.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the CRTC's decision whereby the random deletion of commercials from cablevision programs originating in United States will be discontinued, is the government considering revision of the legislation dealing with the tax liability of Time magazine and other magazines and commercial advertising on United States television, in return for the relaxation of the new American law restricting deductions for expenses for conventions held in this country which United States citizens attend?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, there is no such legislation under consideration at the present time.



FINANCE


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance? Has the government considered the effect of the new American tax law to do with the deductions I mentioned on hotels and the tourist industry in Canada, and can he say if any action will be taken on the matter?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the situation is under scrutiny, but I should not like to comment on it at this point.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. Yesterday the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot asked why the film "Forecast for Survival" produced in 1975 by the National Film Board for the Department of the Environment had not been released. I wonder if the minister could comment on a somewhat unusual coincidence: within 30 minutes of the question being asked, the film was released. Can the minister comment on the possibility of the Department of External Affairs having applied pressure on his department not to release that film after it was produced in 1975?


Hon. Rom6o LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, obviously, things move more quickly when I am absent from the House than when I am present. I am not familiar with the details of the matter but I can inform the hon. member that I authorized the screening of the film, because of the high profile of the issue during the pre-Christmas period, involving tankers. I asked for the film to be screened again, with a view to seeing if it could be released without being updated. The film, conceived in 1973, was finally produced in the spring of 1975; after checking, it was realized that it was a bit out of date, and it would have cost $20,000 to do it over again. Money is tight and was tight at that time, and that is why it was not proceeded with. My reaction was that the film was limited somewhat in not being totally up to date, but I think it is an interesting document and I suggested release, if I remember correctly, on the day we left for the Christmas break.


Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment? Would the minister say at whose request or insistence the film was suppressed for 18 months? Was it at the request or insistence of the Department of the Environment or are rumours regarding the influence of the Department of External Affairs in holding back release of this film accurate?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member that the film was commissioned by ourselves. It was at our request that it was withheld. I know that the problem of updating it was very real. Certainly, if, because of delicate negotiations going on with other countries, we were advised not to release it at that time, I find that perfectly reasonable.
January 27, 1977



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might be permitted to ask the government House leader his intentions with regard to the business for today and the rest of the week, and perhaps into next week.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we are presently dealing with the metric conversion bill which I hope will clear the House very shortly. Following that, the Minister of Finance will deal with the Customs tariff and the excise tax for the remainder of this week. On Monday we propose to deal with the Income Tax Act. Because the Minister of Finance will be involved in a Finance minister's conference on Tuesday and Wednesday, for those two days I will call Bill C-27, second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration of an act to establish the Department of Employment and Immigration, and so on. On Thursday, if the Income Tax Act has not cleared the House on Monday, we will return to that measure.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman did not mention the matter of allotted days. Has he given any thought to that? If so, can he now tell us? If not, will he entertain a suggestion with regard to allotted days?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have thought about them and I will entertain a suggestion with regard to them. However, I believe we will have to consider them following the program I have laid out.


Walter David Baker: Fine.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, can the government House leader indicate when he is going to call, for second reading, Bill C-30 in the name of the Secretary of State which, among other things, includes provision for the institution of Heritage Day. In view of the fact that this year that day will be on February 21, will the minister call the bill soon so that parliament can make a decision in time for it to be observed in 1977?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it depends upon what the hon. member means by "observe". It is my understanding that parallel action would be required with respect to the Canada Labour Code to give effect, for example, to a holiday to employees under federal jurisdiction. I make that qualification because if the holiday were to be observed in the way the hon. member desires, as I understand it would require simultaneous action with regard to the Canada Labour Code. 1 believe the Minister of Labour will be giving first reading to an amendment to the Canada Labour Code today which, if my memory is correct, will deal with this matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the minister has said, but he has not answered my question. Will he call Bill C-30 soon?
Privilege-Mr. Oberle


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have some more urgent items with which I would like to deal. Today the House has been asking when the Minister of Finance is going to produce a budget. The House has not yet dealt with the bills that have come from the last budget. I would like to get some of them out of the way first.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the government House leader has indicated that the government is concerned, in terms of its priorities, with such bills as metric conversion, the Customs tariff and the excise tax. The Minister of Finance indicated that we will not have a budget before the end of next month. Is the government telling the House and the people of Canada it will not have before late spring any measures to deal with the serious unemployment situation?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Yesterday the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), at the conclusion of the question period, raised a point of order concerning the alleged reference to a document by the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) during that question period. The purpose of the point of order was that within the regulations and precedents in our practice the minister, having made reference to that document or having cited the document, ought to be compelled by the House to produce it.
There are three aspects to the matter. The first is whether the minister, in terms of the precedents, in fact cited the document. In that respect I would refer the House to a ruling by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux on November 16, 1971, which reads as follows:
In fairness, looking at the matter as objectively as I can, I do not see how it is possible for the Chair to make a ruling at this point that a document that has simply been referred to but has not been directly quoted should be tabled in debate. I find it difficult to rule otherwise, Hon. members may look at the citations that have been quoted in a very interesting and forceful way by the hon. members ... If a document has been actually cited or quoted in debate by a minister of the Crown, it has to be tabled. If only reference is made to it, I do not see how there can be an obligation to table it.
The interpretation of that precedent ought to be strict where the document has first been referred to in the question period by a questioner. It ought to be interpreted much more against the minister, in my opinion, if-as the rule and the precedent
80008-1iVi

Privilege-Mr. Oberle
envisage-a minister is in a situation where in debate, which is what the rule says, the minister has taken an advantage of the rest of the House by referring to, citing or quoting a document in his possession but not in the possession of the rest of. the House.
Therefore, if in the question period-which strictly speaking, is not debate but has some parallel application-a minister were to make first reference to a document, which gave him an advantage in answering a question, that the rest of the House did not have in pursuing further questions, the rule could be interpreted in that way. However, where the document is raised and, in answer, some reference is made by a minister, the language of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux is directly applicable: there would have to be a direct quotation or citation, which was not the case yesterday.
In any case, there are two other aspects to the matter. Second, there seems to be some desire on the part of those pressing for the production of the document that some altered form of the document be produced. Surely it would not be expected that this House, or the Chair especially, would formulate an order which would tell a minister to produce a document in response to that order-not the entire document but merely an expurgated version. I have the greatest difficulty understanding how such an order could be phrased and, therefore, I am not prepared to proceed with it.
In the final analysis, the minister claims that the document ought not to be released by him in respect of the public interest. It is conceded, certainly, by both the arguments, specifically by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the action of the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) in support of his point of order, that by leaving out large portions of the document it would, in fact, be against the public interest to table the entire document. Therefore, for those three reasons I will not order the document to be produced.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to the business that has been announced to the House and, more particularly, with respect to Bill C-31 which was introduced into this chamber yesterday. I have read the resolution, and it tells one nothing except for page 4 of the order paper notices. I have not been able to get my hands on the bill, either, though I asked for it early in the afternoon. However, I understand it represents an attempt to remove certain grain and flour subsidies helpful to Halifax and to Saint John.
If my understanding of Bill C-31 is correct, this is an issue which was debated long and hotly during the present session of parliament, with the result that it was withdrawn at one stage of the proceedings. The point I am making briefly is this: when Bill C-31 is introduced for second reading, I intend to argue that it should not be considered at this session of parliament on the basis of the very ancient and, obviously, most worthy practice that you do not take two bites of the same cherry at one session of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-32, to amend the Canada Labour Code.


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

Otto Emil Lang: for leave to introduce Bill C-33, to amend the National Transportation Act and the Department of Transport Act for the purpose of defining the objective of the transportation policy for Canada and authorizing the consequential rearrangement of powers and duties relating to transport and to amend the Transport Act and the Railway Act in respect of freight rates and other matters.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 162, 494, 662, 935, 936, 942, 956, 964, 966, 972, 992, 1,023, 1,026, 1,058, 1,061, 1,091, 1,178, 1,280, 1,283 to 1,287 inclusive, 1,289 and 1,291.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What is the government's best estimate of its dollar level contribution to the gross provincial product of Nova Scotia in each year for which figures are available since 1968?
2.	For each such year, what percentage of Nova Scotia's gross provincial product does the federal spending represent?


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: 1 and 2. No further types of data have become available since the same question was put and answered earlier this year (See House of Commons Debates, July 12, 1976, Vol. 119, No. 339, p. 15256). However, data for 1975 and revised data for 1974, are now available for the series presented in the previous reply. The comments made in the previous reply as to
January 27, 1977

the limitations of using these data for the purposes sought in the question apply equally to the figures presented in this reply. Estimates of Nova Scotia's gross provincial product come from the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council and the estimates of expenditures in Nova Scotia under a number of major federal programs are from Statistics Canada. As a general indication of their importance relative to the size of the Nova Scotia economy, the second panel shows the expenditure estimates expressed as percentages of estimated gross provincial product. These percentage figures do not, in any way, represent estimates of contributions to gross provincial product.
Federal Payments to Persons and Governments in Nova Scotia
	Nova Scotia			Transfers to
	Gross			Provincial-
Provincial	Transfers	LocalProduct	Wages and Salaries	to Persons	Governments(in $ Millions)	1971	2,581	247	213	2361972	2,924	278	281	2791973	3,405	307	322	3461974	3,912	375	396	4161975	4,422	430	477	528(as per cent of Nova Scotia Gross Provincial	Product)	1971	9.6	8.4	9.11972	9.5	9.6	9.51973	9.0	9.5	10.21974	9.6	10.1	10.61975	9.7	10.8	11.9


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	(a) Who is the Administrator of the Anti-Inflation Board (b) what is the (i) classification (ii) salary or salary range of the position?
2.	(a) What previous position in the Public Service did he or she hold (b) what was the (i) classification (ii) salary or salary range of the position?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: There is no such position with the Anti-Inflation Board.


Mr. Lachance: Between the date of the presentation of the last budget May 25, 1976 and October 12, 1976, did the Department of Finance, Industrial Development Bank, Bank of Canada, Tariff Board, Department of Insurance, Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation and Anti-dumping Tribunal hire, dismiss or transfer employees to other departments and, if so, how many?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: In so far
as the Minister of Finance is concerned: Department of Finance: The number of employees hired by the Department of Finance during the period in question was 48. No employees
Order Paper Questions
were dismissed. A total of 111 employees were transferred or promoted to other Departments and Agencies of the Federal Government. It should be noted that a substantial proportion of this latter group were employed in the provision of joint support services to the Department of Finance and the Treasury Board Secretariat, although formally employed by the Department of Finance. In respect of the Anti-Dumping Tribunal, three employees were hired during the period in question and three were transferred or promoted to other Departments and Agencies of the Federal Government. I am informed by the Bank of Canada as follows: It has not been the practice to answer detailed questions concerning the internal administration of the Bank of Canada inasmuch as the Bank of Canada Act places the responsibility for its management in the hands of its Board of Directors. I am informed by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation as follows: No employees were hired, dismissed or transferred to other departments.
In so far as the Department of Insurance is concerned: hired, 18; dismissed, 0; transferred, 4.
In so far as Tariff Board is concerned: nil.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Did the government negotiate with the Province of Quebec on the transfer of certain docks situated along the St. Lawrence River and, if so (a) have such negotiations ended (b) which docks were negotiated (c) was an agreement signed and, if so (i) which docks will be transferred to Quebec and on what date (ii) what are its terms (iii) will a copy be tabled in the House?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, the government has been negotiating with the province of Quebec on these matters since early in 1975. (a) No. (b) Anse-au-Port-age; Anse-a-l'Eau; lie aux Grues; Montmagny; St-Juste-du-Lac; Notre-Dame-du-Lac; St-Simeon; Riviere-du-Loup; Sorel; St-Ignace-de-Loyola; Godbout. (c) No.


Mr. Horner: Did any official of the Department of Transport attend the recent convention in San Francisco of the Airport Operators Council?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes. (See list below.) The Airport Operators Council International holds an annual conference each year in a major North American centre. These conferences cover the many aspects of airport operations which enables Air Transportation senior management an opportunity to interchange new concepts of the total operations. R. Belisle-General Manager Airports, Quebec Region; D. C. McAree-Airport Manager, Toronto International; H. J. Tolan-Chief, Rate Economics, Ottawa; W. P. Stoker-Chief, Airport Policing and Security, Ottawa; C. Tackaberry-Chief, Airport System and Services, Ottawa; P. P. Bowes-Director, Airport Services and Security, Ottawa; G. Y. Sebastyan-Director, Airport Facilities, Ottawa; R.

January 27, 1977
Order Paper Questions
Campbell-Chief, Environment, Ottawa; R. Smith-Regional Manager Airports, Edmonton.


Mr. Howie: 1.	What provision is made for the care of veterans, in each Maritime Province, who require a form of hospitalization but do not qualify for active treatment beds in hospitals?
2.	Does the Department of Veterans Affairs own any hospitals, nursing homes or rehabilitation centres available to veterans from the Maritime Provinces?
3.	Did the Department ever own and later dispose of any such facilities and, if so (a) what facilities (b) for what amount (c) for what other consideration?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1.	In all hospitals in the maritime provinces veterans have the same right of access as all other residents. In addition, pensioned veterans have the right of hospital of choice for hospital care required in connection with their service-incurred disability, for which the department pays the costs. Further, departmental facilities and priority access (contract) beds are available for certain veterans under the Veterans Treatment Regulations, as follows: Nova Scotia-DVA Camp Hill Hospital, Halifax, for acute, chronic and domiciliary care; New Brunswick-West Saint John Community Hospital and Ridgewood Veterans Wing; Prince Edward Island-Camp Hill Hospital, Halifax, for chronic and domiciliary care.
2.	The Department of Veterans Affairs owns one hospital (Camp Hill Hospital, Halifax) in the maritime provinces.
3.	Yes.(a) Lancaster Hospital in Saint John was transferred to the province of New Brunswick, (b) The monetary amount involved in the transfer was $1.00. (c) The other considerations are as follows: Canada shall have the right of priority use of 140 beds in a hospital for active and chronic treatment for veterans (20 of the said beds may be used for domiciliary care); and 60 beds for domiciliary care of veterans. Satisfactory arrangements were made for the transfer of staff. A capital grant of $6 million was made payable to the province towards the cost of the provision of 60 priority use beds contained within a domiciliary care facility to be constructed in the Saint John area; the construction and/or renovation of health facilities; and the purchase and installation of such equipment as may be required-all of which shall be related to the improvement of hospital, medical and treatment facilities for the benefit of veterans.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Has any application been received by the government concerning the removal of railway tracks from Fredericton, New Brunswick and, if so, what is the status of any such application?
2.	What government funds or programmes are available to assist such a request financially or otherwise?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. No application has been received, nor has there been any recent contact by either the city or the province with Transport Canada.

2. Part I of the Railway Relocation and Crossing Act provides for the relocation of rail lines. The Minister of Transport and the Minister of State for Urban Affairs will support up to 50 per cent of the cost of preparing Transportation and Urban Development Plans required for application to the Canadian Transport Commission for authority to relocate railway facilities from urban areas. The Minister of Transport, after approval from the Governor in Council, and upon recommendation from the CTC would pay up to 50 per cent of the net cost of relocation.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	For the construction and the relocation of the subway carrying Ste. Marie Boulevard across and under the tracks of CP and CN Railways at Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Quebec, what was the basis for the determination that the maximum sum of $1,250,000 would be paid out of the Railway Grade Crossing Fund?
2.	Does the government take part in such deliberations?
3.	Is there adequate funding of the Railway Grade Crossing Fund?
4.	Has the Government of Quebec indicated any reluctance to proceed with this work because of insufficient funding by the Railway Grade Crossing Fund?


Otto Emil Lang: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. The application for assistance for this project was made under Part III of the Railway Relocation and Crossing Act. Section 20, Subsection 3, paragraph "b" prescribes the percentage of the costs which may be paid by a grant from the Railway Grade Crossing Fund. It also fixes the maximum amount which may be paid as $625,000. In the case of St. Marie Boulevard, the subway under each railway was considered as a separate project and the maximum therefore becomes 2 x $625,000 or $1,250,000. The grant as provided for in the order is correct according to the provisions of the Railway Relocation and Crossing Act.
2.	The Canadian Transport Commission is responsible for the administration of the Railway Grade Crossing Fund as provided for in the Railway Relocation and Crossing Act.
3.	There is adequate funding of the Railway Grade Crossing Fund.
4.	The Railway Transport Committee's files do not indicate any reluctance on the part of the government of Quebec to proceed with this work because of insufficient funding from the Railway Grade Crossing Fund.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	With reference to a release dated October 21, 1976 by the Minister of Supply and Services and the Minister of Communications, announcing a contract to Bell Canada to implement an inter-city telephone network, with participation by Newfoundland Telephone Company as a sub-contractor, what are the details of the contract for inter-city telephone communications between Ottawa and Corner Brook, Stephenville and Deer Lake in western Newfoundland?
2.	What are the details of inter-city telephone communications between the cities of St. John's and Corner Brook, Newfoundland, as it relates to government departments or agencies between those two cities?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1.	The contract for the new system provides for inter-city
January 27, 1977

telephone communications from Ottawa to the three locations: Corner Brook, Stephenville, and Deer Lake. Because of forecasted call volumes, telephone communications from these locations to Ottawa would continue to be provided by the regular commercial network. A service improvement will occur for telephone calls which originate in Ottawa and terminate in Newfoundland. This improvement results from the agreement under the contract to specified transmission standards which are to be maintained on a national basis.
2.	Inter-city telephone service between the cities of St. John's and Corner Brook are presently served on the commercial network. We expect this service would continue to be used until there is sufficient traffic to warrant private line service for the federal government.


Mfr. Forrestall: 1.	Is the government considering assessments against cargo shipped via St. Lawrence River ports to recover costs incurred in providing (a) dredging (b) ice breaking services and (i) if not, for what reason (ii) if so, on what date?
2.	Is the provision of these services "free" not a direct conflict with the government's alleged user pay programme as pertains to transportation services?
3.	Does the government consider the provision of these services "free" to constitute an unfair disadvantage to the Ports of Halifax and Saint John?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. The government is considering the complex issue of marine user charges for the range of marine services provided in all sectors of federally serviced waters. The particular St. Lawrence River services mentioned are being considered, but not in isolation, and no date has been set for such a levy.
2.	The imposition of user charges to the extent practicable is only one of the objectives of the transportation policy. Considerable time and economic analysis will be required to implement this part of the policy in all transport modes without impairing our international trade or regional social and economic development.
3.	Halifax and Saint John have received significant federal assistance in recent years and are able to compete very effectively with alternative Canadian and American ports.


Mr. Howie: 1.	As of November 1, 1976, how many positions in the Canadian Armed Forces were designated as bilingual?
2.	Is consideration being given to a review of the designation of these positions?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: 1. In
accordance with studies conducted to comply with the official languages act the Department of National Defence has identified 12,256 positions as bilingual for future requirement. Due to many factors such as training facilities, funding, career progression etc. no positions have so far been designated.
Order Paper Questions
Depending on factors as listed above some designations will commence in 1978 but will not be completed till 1992.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Howie: During the Fiscal year ended March 31, 1976, how much money was (a) paid (b) committed to New Brunswick for development of (i) each of the electric power production units by location (ii) electric power transmission facilities by locations?


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited reports as follows: (a) Thirty million dollars loan funds re Point Lepreau Nuclear Electric Generating Station; (b) (i) Nil; (ii) Nil.


Mr. Howie: How many violations of the Bank Act and Regulations were reported by the Inspector General of Banks (a) for the year ended March 31, 1976 (b) from April 1, 1976 to date?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: (a) One; (b) None.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	In the event of the retirement in the Spring of 1977 of Mr. Cassels, Social Director for the Veterans' Hospital in Victoria, has the Department of Veterans Affairs made plans for a replacement for Mr. Cassels?
2.	Has the Department considered extending Mr. Cassels' service on a part-time basis and, if so, what were the results of such consideration?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: 1. Mr. Cassels remains undecided as to when he will retire. Should he do so in the spring of 1977, he has indicated that he will give the department three months' notice. In the event of Mr. Cassels' retirement, the department would normally proceed to find a replacement for him.
2. The department is not considering extending Mr. Cassels' service on a part-time basis but would consider it if this would serve the requirements at the Veterans Pavilion.


Mr. Howie: Have any studies been done on the feasibility of a corridor road connecting New Brunswick to Quebec by a relatively direct route through Maine and, if so (a) on what dates (b) by whom (c) are they available to the public?


Otto Emil Lang: In so far as
Transport Canada is concerned: One study was undertaken several years ago which evaluated the feasibility of a corridor road connecting New Brunswick to Quebec by a relatively direct route through Maine, (a) the study was undertaken in 1970; (b) the study was conducted by N.D. Lea and Associates

Order Paper Questions
Ltd., Transportation Engineers and the M.W. Menzies Group Ltd., Consulting Economists; (c) the report can be made available to interested parties through the Transport Canada Library, 13 Floor, Tower C, Place de Ville, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A0N5.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Since January 1, 1974, have any banks or branches located at Fredericton, New Brunswick been inspected by the Inspector General of Banks or his staff and, if so (a) how many (b) on what dates (c) in what locations were the inspections conducted (d) what is the address of the bank or branch?
2.	Were any irregularities discovered during any of the inspections and, if so, were they rectified?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1 and 2. The Financial condition of a bank is based on its operations as a whole including all of its branches. The Inspector General and staff are concerned with examining and inquiring into the management policies, practices and control procedures of the bank as a whole including those pertaining to examinations made of branches and departments through internal and external audits. Branches are accordingly not normally inspected by the Inspector General or his staff and none were inspected since January 1, 1974 at Fredericton, New Brunswick.


Mr. McCleave: 1.	What terms, as to times of refit, were set forth in the tenders for the refits of the four helicopter destroyers and was it required that all four be admitted for refit simultaneously or within allotted time periods of each other?
2.	What yard or yards had the facilities to live up to the time conditions in the tender call?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. The terms, as to times of refit, as set forth in the tender for the refits of the four helicopter destroyers were within allotted time periods of each other as follows:
HMCS Skeena HMCS Nipigon HMCS Fraser HMCS Ottawa
Commencement
December 6, 1976 April 11, 1977 July 25, 1977 December 5, 1977
Completion
April 23, 1977 September 2, 1977 December 16, 1977 April 28, 1978
Shipbuilding and Drydock Co. Ltd., St. John, N.B., did not tender because of coincidence of the work with other contracts.


Mr. McKinley: What was the final cost, and completion date, for the contract awarded on April 15, 1975 to Norman and Fleming Limited for renovations to the exterior of the Lome Building in Ottawa?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works):: Final contract cost $2,765,943.43. Completion date, 1976-08-27.


Mr. McKinley: What was the final cost and completion date for the contract awarded on April 18, 1975 to Domcat Construction Company Ltd. for renovations to the central heating and cooling plant at the Communications Research Centre, Shirley's Bay, Ontario?


J. Judd Buchanan: Final contract cost $1,396,452.81. Completion date, 1977-02-02 (estimated).


Mr. McKinley: What was the final cost and the completion date for the contract awarded on July 25, 1975 to Seaward Construction Ltd. to build a school complex in Bella Bella, British Columbia?


J. Judd Buchanan: Final contract cost, $1,268,428.54. Completion date, 1976-09-08.


Mr. McKinley: What was the final cost and the completion date for the contract awarded on August 22, 1975 to Dene Mat Construction Ltd. to build several houses in Fort Simpson, N.W.T.?


J. Judd Buchanan: Final cost of the contract, $600,279 (estimated). Final completion date, January 31, 1977. The actual date of contract award was June 20, 1975.
2. The following shipyards who replied to the tender call had the facilities to carry out the work described in the tender calkCanadian Vickers Ltd., Montreal, Que., Davie Shipbuilding Ltd., Montreal, Que., Hawker Siddeley Canada Ltd., Halifax Shipyard Division, Halifax, N.S. However, Hawker Siddeley indicated that the work on the first two vessels coincided with other major contracts which precluded them from adhering to the schedule for these vessels. Also, two other yards, Marine Industries Ltd., Sorel, Que., and St. John
[Mr. Lang.)


Mr. McKinley: What was the final cost and the completion date for the contract awarded on July 25, 1975 to Poole Construction Ltd. to build rowhousing at Yellowknife, N.W.T.?


J. Judd Buchanan: Final cost of contract, $2,145,313 (estimated). Final completion

date, August 11, 1977 (estimated). The actual date of contract award was July 11, 1975.


Mr. McKinley: What was the final cost and the completion date for the contract awarded on January 20, 1975 to Ray-Bilt Contractors Ltd. to build a community hospital at Watson Lake, Yukon Territory?


J. Judd Buchanan: Final contract cost, $1,227,113.56. Completion date, 1976-06-10.


Mr. McKinley: What was the final cost and the completion date for the contract awarded on April 18, 1975 to Buildall Construction Ltd. for construction of a new barrack block for the RCMP depot in Regina?


J. Judd Buchanan: Final contract cost, $4,249,953 (estimated). Completion date, 197706-10 (estimated).


Mr. McKinley: What was the final cost and the completion date for the contract awarded on August 29, 1975 to Atlas Construction Maritimes Ltd. to pave the cargo wharf and shed area in Dalhousie, New Brunswick?


J. Judd Buchanan: Final contract cost, $90,348.95; Completion date, 1975-08-18; The actual date of contract award was 1975-07-16.
*
* *
[English)


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 851 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately. The reason for making this request is the lengthy nature of the answer.
[ Text]


Mr. Rodriguez: What are the (a) names (b) addresses (c) former occupations of all regional distributors for Loto Canada and how were these people chosen?
Return tabled.

Order Paper Questions STARRED QUESTIONS


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, would you be good enough to call starred questions 1,075, 1,076 and 1,258?
I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Rynard: 1.	What is the estimated cost of construction of the marine railway at Big Chute on the Trent-Severn Waterway?
2.	Have tenders been called for the construction of the marine railway and, if so, what is the name of the successful contractor?
3.	What was the cost of (a) repairs (b) maintenance (c) staff of the present marine railway for the years 1970 to 1976?


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows: 1. Estimated cost of construction of the marine railway at Big Chute-$3,300,000.
2.	Tenders have been called for the construction of the marine railway. The name of the successful bidder cannot be released until contract negotiations have been finalized.
3.	Costs for Big Chute marine railway: (a) From fiscal year 1970-71 to fiscal year 1976-77, the repair costs were $52,000 for an average of $7,428 per year, (b) From fiscal year 1970-71 to fiscal year 1976-77, maintenance costs were $26,000 for an average of $3,714 per year, (c) From fiscal year 1970-71 to fiscal year 1976-77, the staff costs were $247,740 for an average of $35,391 per year.


Mr. Rynard: 1.	For the years 1970 to 1976, what was the cost for (a) repairs (b) maintenance (c) staff of Lock 43 Swift Rapids on the Trent-Severn Waterway?
2.	What was the total cost of construction of Lock 43 Swift Rapids?


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows: 1. Costs for Lock 43 Swift Rapids: (a) From fiscal year 1970-71 to fiscal year 1976-77, the repair costs were $37,400 for an average of $5,443 per year, (b) From fiscal year 1970-71 to fiscal year 1976-77, the maintenance costs were $70,000 for an average of $10,000 per year, (c) From fiscal year 1970-71 to fiscal year 1976-77, the staff costs were $171,085 for an average of $24,441 per year.
2. Total cost of construction of Lock 43 Swift Rapids was: $2,428,834.
2448

Confederation


Mr. Fairweather: Has a decision been made about the proposed expansion of Fundy National Park and, if so, on what date will an announcement be made?


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, no decision has been made about the proposed expansion of Fundy National Park.


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Having given the Chair the proper notice, Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand, to move the adjournment of the House under the terms of Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and urgent matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the failure of the Prime Minister to tell the House and the Canadian people what steps he proposes to take to counter the threat to Canadian confederation posed by the separatist government in Quebec. This question must be transferred from the public arena to its proper place, the chamber of the House of Commons, where it can be debated by the representatives of all the people of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member gave the Chair notice, pursuant to Standing Order 26, of his intention to raise this matter. He has put forward a motion which relates to three questions. One has to do with a threat to Canadian confederation; second, the election of a separatist government in Quebec; and, third, the failure of the Prime Minister to inform the House-if I may quote from the motion-what steps he proposes to take to counter the threat to confederation, and so on. With regard to the first two questions, subparagraph (16) of Standing Order 26 reads as follows:
The right to move the adjournment of the House for the above purposes is subject to the following conditions:
(a) the matter proposed for discussion must relate to a genuine emergency
calling for immediate and urgent consideration-
I interpret that language as meaning that an order for debate cannot proceed if the subject suggested, however important or pressing, does not constitute an emergency but is a matter of a continuing nature. The motion expresses an opinion-and I stress that it is the hon. member's opinion- that the result of the Quebec election constitutes a threat to

confederation. But the hon. member must surely realize that if it is a threat to confederation, it is a continuing threat and not one of an emergency nature as envisaged in subsection (a) of section 16 of the Standing Order. Therefore, I would refrain from granting the special debate pursuant to Standing Order 26 on that basis. Furthermore, I am most reluctant to enter into an expression of opinion as to whether or not an election that has taken place in any province, being a duly lawful and proper election within the procedures known under our system, can, as an opinion of the Chair, constitute what is required by the Standing Order to be an emergency calling for immediate and urgent consideration.
In the final analysis, the hon. member moves from those two points to concentrate in the motion on the failure of the Prime Minister to tell this House what steps he is taking to counteract the results of this election. In that respect, while I would not say so except with the very greatest reluctance, since that is a criticism of the Prime Minister I would have to consider, under section (5) of the Standing Order, whether that is a very proper use of the allotted days that will be following.
I am very reluctant to use the escape under Standing Order 26 that so long as an opposition day remains there is a chance to discuss matters of importance, and therefore the rule ought not to be used to set up a debate. Standing Order 26 was changed in order, I think, to remove debate on whether or not the order should go, and to set up hours that could be used by the Chair which are auxiliary hours to the regular sittings. I think those changes were made in order to see that matters of national importance which ought to be debated in this chamber and which would not likely be debated in other ways could be debated under the application of the order.
I do not like to refute that by saying that since an opposition day may be coming up, that notice ought to be taken. I think that forces upon the opposition an obligation which is not natural with respect to the use of those days. However, that part of the hon. member's motion which seeks to criticize the Prime Minister for his failure to make a disclosure to this House seems to me to be a very proper use of one of the opposition days. Therefore, having regard to the two reasons that I cited previously relative to subsection (16)(a), and for the latter reason relative to section (5) of the rule, I do not see fit to set aside special hours pursuant to Standing Order 26 to debate the motion put forward by the hon. member.
Orders of the day.
January 27, 1977



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, January 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien that Bill C-23, to facilitate conversion to the metric system of measurement, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, before I conclude my remarks I should like to correct a portion of my remarks appearing in Hansard for yesterday at page 2429. I am reported as having said: "No matter how you look at it, there is no benefit to the manufacturer." I thought I said: "No matter how you look at it, there will only be benefit to the manufacturer." That was one of the points I was trying to make. As a result of the insistence of the manufacturers, without thought for all other segments of the economy, we are being forced into a system without any consultation. It is a common complaint among farmers that they are being saddled with costs and the buck stops there, as it is often said: they are at the mercy of prices over which they have no control.
It is quite evident from the remarks made by other members from western Canada that the readings we have been getting from our constituencies and from people with whom we have been in contact the last little while are entirely different from those that the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) has apparently been getting, or wants to lead us to believe he has been getting.
I referred to the confusion and to the case of a man trying to get directions. Present-day roads will be in existence for years to come and will be measured in terms of miles, not kilometres. Speedometers or mileage meters will be calibrated in kilometres; therefore you will not be able to give specific directions in years to come. Under the new system people will be bamboozled for years to come. In fact, we will be using two systems. That in itself will complicate matters.
The fact is, as other people have said, that this change will not produce one bushel more. In fact, it will only add to total cost; it will add nothing to efficiency. Replacement parts for many machines will no longer be available. I know for a fact, from past experience, that machinery companies practice planned obsolescence; they do not intend to manufacture any item to last longer than they feel is necessary. They are the ones who make the decisions. As I pointed out yesterday, you cannot even replace a simple thing like a rim by using one from another machine; you have to buy the rim made for the machine. On our farm I believe at the last count there were like 115 to 120 tires around the place, so one can imagine the number of rims required. I am sure other farms have more, or perhaps less, but the fact is that in many instances these rims are not interchangeable.
Metric System
Manufacturers keep insisting that if they are more competitive and can break into world markets, their cost of production will go down. If it is good business for them to standardize in terms of the rest of the world, then we as consumers should demand of the minister-and he might consider this-that legislation should be brought forward to compel manufacturers to give us something in return. I should like to see the minister come forward and insist that manufacturers standardize on items such as chains, bearings, sprockets, and so on. These items differ in size by a fraction of an inch, which means that one rim will not fit over another hub. This is a deliberate attempt on the part of manufacturers to make you buy their parts only, and there is no need for that. There should be standardization. If we are expected to pay the price of this conversion, surely we should expect something from the manufacturers. Therefore, I would ask the minister seriously to consider whether he can compel these manufacturers to standardize.
For example, why is it that a car cannot use the same type of windshield over a number of different model years? Instead, the manufacturer adds a fraction of an inch, or makes it slightly smaller, or gives it a little more curvature so that it cannot be used in a car of a different year should it need replacement. As far as I am concerned, this would help keep down the fires of inflation. Certainly it would reduce costs in many areas.
In many instances people are struggling for survival, as are many operations. We witness this day in and day out. Many people are not fussy about the newness of a given piece of equipment or instrument; they are more concerned about its serviceability. This is particularly true of trucks. Many farmers use trucks, but in this regard they do not get the co-operation from the manufacturer which the manufacturer expects from the consumer, particularly in the agricultural field. Several pelleting plants in my constituency sell their product to Japan. They tell me they never had any difficulty selling their pellets to Japan under the old system. If Japan wanted quantities in metric tonnes, they could comply with that request. There has never been any confusion. So why in the world are we suddenly faced with this Latin conversion which will simply add to the total cost, and in many instances, will add unnecessarily to the existing confusion? It will add to the cost as a result of delay and inefficiency.
It is bad enough for the farmer to have to sit down and make the calculations, but if he sends his man out into the field on the machinery, you can imagine how much attention that man will pay to proper measurement. I have had some experience along this line, and let me assure you that I have had to re-seed quite a few acres in rapeseed because the proper calculations were not made. I suggest this new system of measurement will only add to the total cost of operations. There will, no doubt, be additional confusion, and perhaps that is why a request I have heard often is being made by people who have considered this matter. The suggestion is that we adopt an interim measurement so that between the time we
80008-18%

January 27, 1977
Metric System
remove the old bushel measurement until we adopt the equivalent metric measurement we will have a designated term such as a "kilshel", or whatever name you want to attach to it, which will be approximately two-thirds the volume of the old bushel. Instead of 60 pounds, it will be 40.
In this way we would have accurate, but simple, calculations, thereby minimizing the amount of confusion among people who have to make these calculations. This is the suggestion made by some of the people who have given this matter real consideration. I have not given it much thought, personally, but that is a suggestion 1 have heard from farmers. They feel there should be some measurement during the interim or transitional period. In this way we could move gradually to the new measurement. This interim measure could be introduced on a temporary basis.
Many elevator agents are presently concerned because they feel many errors will be made. I know that eventually these errors will be caught at the head offices of the respective companies, but this will only add to the confusion. Unless the farmer is always on his toes, there will be an additional loss of time. It might be easy for the farmer to double-check on these calculations during the winter months, but from the time of winter break-up to the first snow, farmers are too busy to take time off to check measurements, calculations and payments for the various grades they have sold.
I appeal to the minister to set up a system to monitor pricing in retail outlets. I mentioned the incident involving the shaving cream with three different measurements and three different prices. We cannot expect everyone to carry a calculator. If we did, we would be like a bunch of robots. However, the department should involve itself in this problem. If there is a price increase that is too high, an inspector might usefully spend some time checking the price in various outlets. This would be appreciated not only by housewives but by consumers. In the case of coffee, sugar and almost anything else, many retail outlets have taken advantage of any change to increase the price, which never again comes down.
I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by assuring the House that the farming community is not enthusiastic about this change. We feel it will add to confusion, with absolutely no benefit.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I find it odd to speak now on this bill on metric conversion, because I had the opportunity to speak on the subject when the bill was originally introduced in the House a number of years ago. The hon. member just mentioned one problem which we experience as the result of a conglomeration of sizes of parts for farm machinery and implements. We all know about coarse threads, fine threads, various pitch threads, metric threads, standard threads, pipe threads and others. Obviously, it is an expensive proposition for the farmer to maintain a supply of parts for his equipment in order to make normal repairs. One reason I am in favour of going to the metric system is to eliminate the problems we have as a result of these various sizes. By adopting the metric system we would standardize things such as nuts and bolts.
[Mr. Korchinski.J
I have in the past often found that when you ask a civil servant to do something, he quite often does not do what you ask, or does something that goes beyond what is required or is in any way advantageous to you. In fact, very often the civil servant creates more problems. Having regard to what the last speaker said in respect of standardization, one of the problems farmers are now experiencing has been expressed by wheat pools, farm organizations and others. They have suggested that unless civil servants pay attention to the needs of the consumer, the consumer will be ripped off to an extent never before experienced. The rip-off already exists to a degree or we would not have this suggestion to simplify the complex problem involving measurement. In simplifying the problem we may be encouraging a rip-off against the farmer.
Let us consider tire sizes for a moment. Considering the number of changes that have been made in the last ten years, it is a wonder that anyone can buy replacement tires for his automobile, truck or tractor. If the change continues, soon we will not be able to buy tires that will fit our rims. Perhaps we will require two sizes, one to fit the rims that originally came with the car, and one as a replacement size. This is only an example; there are many things like this. There is a tremendous opportunity for the government to prevent this rip-off by industry in respect of size changes. Let me give the example of the antique car. If you want parts, you must have them manufactured specifically for the automobile, at tremendous cost.
Let me refer to the propaganda put out by the minister respecting the agricultural industry going metric. It starts out by suggesting that in 1977 Canada and the United States will be converting to the metric measurement system used by the rest of the world. That is a lot of bull; it is not true. The rest of the world never used this system, and in this respect the government is being totally dishonest. What happened was that many countries got together and established a metric unit of measurement. For years Italy, France and many European countries have used the metric system in respect of temperature. We have developed a new international metric unit of measurement for temperature, and we are doing this in a number of other areas. We are not accepting the system that was in use in other countries, and I think people should be told that. What we are doing-and we have no objection to it-is embarking upon a world measurement system that is expressed in metric units. This will apply to countries which have been on the metric system even more than it will apply to this country.
People who thought they were talking about degrees of Centigrade in terms of temperature now find they are talking in terms of degrees of Celsius, which is a totally new unit applied internationally to the measurement of temperature. The Centigrade measurement was retained for the radius of a circle because the radius of a circle and temperature have no relationship to each other. The same is true of Pascal in the measurement of pressure, and many other things. There were obviously many units of metric measurement in use through-

January 27, 1977
out the world which were not the same as other units. We have designed new international units of metric measurement which all countries of the world have agreed to adopt. I do not think the government is aware of the criticism it is going to receive. It is saying that the farmer will have to change.
Mr. Speaker, I decided I was going to learn the Celsius scale and know what it was all about. When I looked at the barometer and saw it was 10 degrees below zero, however, I could not decide whether it was cold or was not cold. When I got outside I found I was wearing too many clothes, because the barometer was reading Celsius. After two years of looking at the stupid barometer I bought one that had both Fahrenheit and Celsius on it. Then I would listen to the radio to find out the temperature, and look out the window at my barometer to see what it said, and between them I could work out how cold it was.
In this country we have encountered a lot of problems with the introduction of bilingualism, but I do not think any of us would say that we were wrong in passing the Official Languages Act. It is a different thing, however, when it is implemented and John Doe is told that he has to become bilingual. I have only to recall my own difficulties with Celsius to realize how difficult it is for him. Now we are telling industry that it is to their advantage to make the conversion to metric.
Mr. Speaker, I do not have much sympathy with any difficulties the Canadian Wheat Board may encounter or any problems that may develop for the wheat pools. For the benefit of the parliamentary secretary, may I say that I am informed it will cost $400,000 or $500,000 for the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool to convert. When we start talking about the farmer going over to hectares and kilograms, however, I can foresee a great deal of unfavourable reaction.
I think it would have been possible for the government to have asked industry to label products with the old and the new measurements. In my opinion it is not necessary for the farmer to make the conversion. He can look over his 40 acres, but I do not think it is necessary for him to know that it is 13 or 14 hectares. To him it is a 40-acre field and he knows he is going to get 15 bushels to the acre from that field. When he takes the grain to the elevator, they will tell him the quantity in tonnes. In some of the publications sent to farmers there appears the sentence, "Your truck may hold tonnes". I suppose it depends on the size of the truck, but when he takes the grain to the elevator they will tell him how many tonnes there are.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) pointed out the legal problems involved in changing the basis of land measurement. It will affect all the deeds in existence. Acres will have to be translated into hectares. Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is necessary and, indeed, I do not think it will happen. When the farmer gets an invoice from the elevator, the amount will be expressed in tonnes, and when he gets the invoice for his milk it will be expressed in litres. Packages are now labelled in both French and English. Maybe it would be better not to have the English, because in that way we would quickly pick up a knowledge of French.
Metric System
I know I can always find my way to the washroom no matter what language it is in. Indeed, in some of the airports they use symbols and you do not even need to know the language. The farmer would be assisted if there were a translation to metric on labels. Then he would not have to make the conversion himself. In one generation of teaching children the metric system, the conversion will be made, and I have no objection to that. What I object to, and what I think the farmer objects to, is the demand that he make the conversion himself. I do not think that is necessary. Civil servants see this as a simple problem, as they saw the two official languages as a simple problem. They said that everybody would speak both languages, but now they find that even they are having trouble mastering the second language. The average person will still function in the way that is easiest. The distance from the floor to the ceiling is still approximately eight feet, and when you get a two by four we all know what it is: no matter what the new equivalent may be called, to most of us it will still be a two by four.
It may be important to the industry what the new measurement is but it is not important to me. The wall is still going to be a certain thickness no matter how thick the studs are. The farmer will be required to make the conversion in the amount of grain he sows, the amount of fertilizer he uses and the amount of land he owns. He will not convert to metric terms but, rather, back to the terms with which he is familiar. Therefore, I suggest that the government should be very careful about forcing anyone to make these changes.
In this booklet we are told to go out and buy a 10-metre and 30-metre tape. What for? Farmers will build their buildings as long, or as wide, as they want them, no matter what the tape is. They understand how long they want their building to be, and they can do that with the old tape: they will not buy a new one.
I suggest that the conversion should be gradual, and it will be done successfully if we do not force it, if we do not demand that people become confused. There is no reason for the elevator not to use the two systems, because the elevator people have the assistance of a computer. The next generation will learn the metric system in school, and those who are not familiar with the metric system and are not able to learn it should be allowed to use the system which they know; and even if fractions occur it will not concern them very much in calculating bulk shipments.
I have been very interested to read that by such and such a date the conversion must take place, or that such and such is the earliest completion date, or that the absolute completion date must be before such a period, and so on. Why is that? I do not know why it has to be. Perhaps the minister can explain why in some areas conversion must take place by a certain date. We have not used the metric system in this country previously, yet our grain sales to international markets were made under the metric system simply because that was the way it was done. It did not bother anyone shipping grain that

January 27, 1977
Metric System
that was the way it was done. This was done by computer, and I suppose they assumed that if the computer would accept it, everyone in the country would do the same. However, I am scared they will not.
I would like this conversion to take place as quickly as possible and with as little difficulty as possible, but we must not insist on these changes being made. There was no need to rush, in my opinion, to convert the dairy industry to the metric system. I spoke to some of the dairymen and they told me that when they put out their new containers they had to record a lot of information on them. Then they were refused a licence because in the next stage of the process they had to add some more information. It did not make any difference to the consumer who knew what a quart was and who did not care how it was processed through the machines. It is this kind of insistence on conversion by a certain date that, I am sure, has created some unnecessary expense that could have been avoided quite easily.
So I express the hope, as a practical politician-which most of us here are-that if the civil servants have done a good job, part of their job will be to explain to the people here the necessity of using the new metric units which are used in the international community. Their second responsibility is also a big one. If you take all the quarts of milk off the shelf and replace them with litres, I am not sure whether they will be bigger or smaller. If the housewife does not know whether it is bigger or smaller and wants to know whether she is paying the same amount for the milk, the government has the responsibility to police the pricing so that she does not get gouged in the changeover. This also goes for farm machinery. If we find that a new machine becomes obsolete in two years because, due to the conversion to the metric system, the wheels or the tires cannot be replaced, the public will feel gypped.
The minister and the civil servants have a responsibility to set up an enforcement branch in the department which will ensure that we do not get short-changed when the conversion is made. If a product is smaller, shorter or lighter, we will not know whether we are paying too much or too little for that commodity, because of the change. Unless we know that, we will feel cheated. In fact, we already think we are. So it seems to me that it is the responsibility of the minister and his department to police this matter for us until the conversion is completed.
I do not think it matters a hoot whether it is a bushel, a kilogram or a ton. A farmer looked at a bag and he knew that if he had wheat in it, it was heavier than if he had oats. If he looked in the bin, he knew there would be so many bags in it. In western Canada they look in the bin and they say it will cost so much when it goes to the elevator. The farmer was used to that, he was familiar with what was there, and it will not matter to him whether we have converted to the metric system unless only the new measurements are put on the bin, measurements with which he is not familiar so he will not know whether he is overpaying. If he thinks he is, the government will never sell that system to him.
(Mr. Peters.]
In certain areas the conversion does not have to be pushed quickly. There should be no turning back from the metric system, but I am concerned that we in Canada are trying to show the United States that we are better and faster at converting than they are. The backlash against the government and the Liberal party will not be too bad in western Canada because it will affect only a couple of members, but at the least it will produce a heck of a lot noise, and it may affect some of us in eastern Canada as well. We do not need to be the showplace of the North American continent in metric conversion. Let us proceed with it as fast as acceptable.
I am very interested in hearing what the minister has to say about policing the changes that are made, so that there is no rip-off. It is evident that there could be rip-offs in replacement parts of equipment. Some increased costs may be justified, but it is the minister's responsibility to ensure that there are no rip-offs. I hope he can tell us that a number of people in his department will be continually policing what is being done in industry to protect the consumer after the conversion.


Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to Bill C-23 I, too, wish to register some criticisms and concerns about conversion to the metric system on behalf of the people I represent in the Pembina constituency. In spite of the fact that one might be in basic agreement with the position that Canada should join most other peoples in the world in establishing a unified system of measurement, there are, nevertheless, a number of concerns which deserve comment and study. There can be no doubt about the fact that such an important change will be the stimulus of much frustration during the transition period. While some Canadians will be hurt more than others by the conversion to the metric system, eventually all will be affected by way of increased costs to consumers in the form of increased prices. The exact impact remains an unknown quantity, but it is certain to contribute to an already serious inflationary problem. There have been no estimates of the cost, but in the United States conversion cost estimates range from $40 billion to $100 billion. At the usual one-tenth differential between Americans and Canadians, that means between $4 billion and $10 billion for Canada.
Many small firms may be faced with undue expenses in adapting to the metric system. Added costs will affect their competitive status and may disrupt profits for a year or two. There is the added possibility of business failure in some cases. Although the metrication process is not as far advanced in the United States as it is here, a U.S. Senate bill on metrication was introduced on January 15, 1975, with provisions specifically designed to help small businesses. The bill would enable the administration, in consultation with the secretary of commerce, to make loans to them either directly or in co-operation with banks or other lending institutions through agreement to enable them to participate on an immediate or deferred basis. The American bill would also authorize the small business administration-a U.S. government agency which provides business loans-to make grants to individuals to defray non-
January 27, 1977

reimbursable expenses for tools, and so forth, to a maximum of $2,000 per person. It is suggested that we introduce an amendment along these lines.
The guiding financial principle of this government is to let the costs lie where they fall. This is regarded by many groups, manufacturing concerns and individuals, as being most inequitable. It is not in the national interest for some groups to suffer while others benefit under a policy which is supposed to serve the long-term good of all Canadians.
In a good many ways this debate is useless because the government, in its 1970 white paper on metric conversion, committed Canada to converting from the current inches-pounds system of measurement to the international system based on metric units. However useless this debate may be, we as members of parliament have an obligation to register our protest on behalf of those we represent. Who will this measure benefit? One thing is for sure; it will not benefit the farmers of this country.
Comments have already been made by other speakers about the tremendous cost of conversion to the metric system and the disruption of changing from acres to hectares and changing the traditional ways of the farmers who have been brought up to know certain measurements. All these things have become part of the culture of our people. This sudden change hits our farmers first. I cannot understand the rationale behind this change. The government states it is because our commodities are sold on the world markets and that most of our trading partners use the metric system. I suggest that the point of export is where we should make the conversion to the metric system, and not at the farm level.
The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski), the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers), the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk), the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) have all expressed reservations about converting to the metric system. They have done a superb job in this debate expressing the views of our western farmers. So rather than prolong this debate, let me close by expressing my hope that this measure will be given further thought and that the minister will give serious consideration to the realistic proposals made by the hon. members I just mentioned.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, I will limit my observations to the part of this bill dealing with prairie agriculture and with the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, and point out the much more serious and far-reaching implications which might not occur to most people involved in the changeover.
When considering adopting the metric system, it would be helpful to think about how our present system came about. Originally, a yard was the length of a man's arm, or to use a more modern phrase, the length of a person's arm. When people related the distance of a yard in their own minds they could at least look at their arm to assess how long it was. But
Metric System
what is a metre? If my memory serves me correctly, the length of the metre was decided by Napoleon and the standard measurement is in some Paris institution. I do not know whether it is on public view, but it is something most of us have never seen and very few will ever see. To us the yard represents something which is tangible; it is approximately the length of a person's arm.
It might be convenient to some to use a kilogram, which is something like 2.2 pounds, or a ton, but a ton is far too big for an individual to estimate properly. A bushel was something a man could carry. He could visualize a bushel basket, but could he visualize the equivalent in metric terms? Of course not! We have ten kilograms, 20 kilograms or 30 kilograms, and we end up with a ton, which is approximately 60 bushels of wheat or 70 bushels of barley. It cannot be visualized. The metric system is a fine thing for large grain companies when they handle boxcars, shiploads or unit trains of grain. The ton is a workable unit for them, but it is rather ridiculous for the government to argue that we need a changeover to sell our grain. We have been selling it metrically for decades in the world markets.
It is interesting that the people who agree with this change are the grain handling companies, of which there are just a few. As the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) said, it would be fine in air-conditioned offices where there are computers to deal with the metric system, but the farmer out on his windy acres with the rain pouring, or with dust in his eyes, would find it difficult to use the metric system. It is not easy to use the metric system at the farm level because there are certain inherent problems. This part of the bill deals with western Canada, and western Canada was surveyed on the mile square or the one mile by two miles square. Everyone knows that a section is 640 acres, more or less, depending on corrections necessary for latitude and longitude. A quarter section is 160 acres. An acre is something we can visualize, but with this bill we would have hectares, which bears no relationship to anything. If this bill could make two plants grow where only one grew before, it might make some sense; but obviously agricultural land does not get any bigger just because we change from acres to hectares.
The ton measure is just too large for most farmers to understand. When I look at daily grain prices, I look at Chicago prices which are still quoted in bushels. Canadian prices are quoted in tons. The one ton price may be $289, whereas the bushel price may be $7, which is easily understood. To those accustomed to small measures, the ton is far too large a unit. This is one of the great difficulties with this metric system at the farm. In the grain trade you have several large companies staffed with competent people. These companies are different from the grain growers, and to the 200,000 permit-holders this is an entirely new system of measuring, a system to which producers will not easily adapt. The new system will come into common use somewhere down the road, but not without trouble. I contend that there is a serious possibility of loss of production. Certainly, the new system will not lead to any increase in production, and there is the distinct

January 27, 1977
Metric System
possibility of loss of production unless certain changes are made in accordance with the representations of the farming industry.
I hope, first, that the term "hectare" will be dropped and "acre" retained. There is no valid reason for not doing this, and it makes sense. Why can we not retain the measurements by "bushel"? The proposed system in this regard makes no sense. For example, the grain elevator agent who must deal with many farmers waiting to unload their grain will need to do much juggling with figures, looking up tables, and so on. He will buy by the ton, then measure the amount of grain loaded on the tank car, or boxcar, in bushels, because the grain transport system for a number of years to come will continue to use the bushel as a unit of measure. I understand it does not yet plan to change over to the metric system.
However, when the grain arrives at the other end of the line it will be measured according to a metric scale. Why cannot the grain continue to be bought in bushels so the elevator agent can continue to ship it in bushels? If the conversion to the metric measure must be made, why cannot it be made at the higher level, so to speak-the other end of the line?
Civil servants who planned this bill have not thought through its full effects. For example, how will the farmer learn to measure his new volumes of fertilizer and herbicide? Herbicides in spray form are applied in small volume. You are dealing with small units, say two or three ounces in ten gallons of water per acre, or perhaps up to 16 ounces of herbicide in 20 gallons of water per acre. It is all too easy to make a mistake in the application of herbicide. If they are applied too thinly, money is wasted because the herbicides will not do the job; but if more than the required amount is applied, your crop is ruined. Many crops have been lost through the overapplication of herbicides. The question of fertilizer volumes is also important.
How are farm implements to be altered? Drills are governed by acre meters, not hectare meters. These drills are mostly American-made. American manufacturers dominate the market and we can expect such drills to remain on the market for a long time. How can a farmer calculate how much seed or fertilizer he must use? He will buy his fertilizer, presumably, by the kilogram and then calculate how much his drill, which will be governed by acre meter, will require for a given area.
It is useless telling the farmer to get a hectare meter; he will not do it. As I have said, 90 per cent of drills are American-made, not Canadian-made. So far as I know, only one company in this country makes drills, Co-op Implements. Therefore, you will not see many metric drills in western Canada or eastern Canada until they are made in the United States, because the farm implement business is really continentwide. It is important to recognize this. For example, at present seed drills come with six-inch, seven-inch and eight-inch runs; I suppose they come in other sizes too. We will not get equivalent drills set up in centimetres, say with 2.5 centimetres being the equivalent of one inch. You will not see a 15-centimetre,

17.5 centimetre or 20 centimetre drill. Drill sizes will still be measured in inches because the North American market as a whole will still demand drills calibrated in inches, at least until the whole of this continent changes over to the metric system.
We send across the border much seed grain, including seed wheat, seed barley and forage seeds. The Department of Agriculture is anxious to increase our exports of forage seeds to the United States market; it is a good market for our clovers and legumes. But passage of this bill may help diminish our United States market because we shall export our seeds in bags labelled in kilograms. The American farmer buying our seed will not be happy. All other things being equal, he will buy the bag of seed labelled in units of measurement with which he is familiar. Therefore, passage of this bill could erect a trade barrier to exports to the United States market, the market to which we export most of our grain seed.
In essence, therefore, the proposed changeover has considerable potential for harm to production. Perhaps the damage will be impossible to measure. In any event, this bill will not in any way lead to increases in production. As I have said, it has a potential for decreasing production. Potentially, it could hurt the farm machinery industry, particularly of western Canada. I am referring to that part of the industry which sells machinery in the United States market. It is well known that up to 80 per cent of farm machinery produced in western Canada is sold on the American market. Therefore, that part of the industry must stay in tune with the American market and do what that market wants, not what civil servants in this country and the metric commission want.
This legislation will also make it difficult for farmers to calculate how much they are getting for their grain or produce. The farmer has been used to selling a bushel of grain, say for $3, a bushel of barley for $2, flax for $7 and rapeseed for $6. Some look on this bill as a conspiracy on the part of the grain industry to confuse the farmer because he will now be dealing with tons of grain. He will get so much money for each ton of grain; and one ton represents roughly the equivalent of 60 bushels. Certainly, the new system will make it more difficult for the farmer to know, on a day to day basis, if he is getting more, or less, for his grain or other produce. Therefore, the new system will bring only confusion to the 200,000 permit holders of western Canada.
It makes no sense to change the survey system from acres to hectares. So long as the grain transportation system uses the bushel as a measurement, grain should be measured in bushels. As an elevator agent told me, he must buy grain by the ton, then ship it by the bushel. He thought the system was stupid and that we were no further ahead. He said that the new system would only create more mistakes and there would be more difficulty all along the line.
Perhaps this legislation is the government's answer to unemployment. We shall need to employ more people to convert measurements from one system to another. However, until the transport system involving the hauling of grain changes over to the metric system, much of this legislation makes no sense. I am alluding to the problems of producers, the way elevator

agents will buy the grain and ship it. Surely it makes no sense to buy by the ton and then ship by the bushel. Remember, relatively unsophisticated people will be doing the measuring in a cold, windy elevator. The agent will buy by the ton, then turn around and ship the grain out by the bushel because the transportation system will still use that unit of measurement.
Surely the railroads of this country are better able to cope with the metric system than the individual farmer. Until they do, it is surely not the time for change. I repeat that in order to be uniform, somewhere down the road we will no doubt change to the metric system. There are many disadvantages to the metric system that we will only realize as we begin to use it. However, change for the sake of getting ahead of the Americans in the agricultural field does not make much sense through this aspect of the legislation.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, 1 listened with interest yesterday to the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) when he spoke in this debate. If you refer to Hansard you will note that at page 2422 he had this to say:
First, it should be noted that this change has a broad and virtually unanimous base of support in the farm community.
He later said:
I did not find the degree of antagonism which they perhaps see, or perhaps it would be more proper to say that they would like to see and would like to foment.
In the latter quote he is referring to the members of the opposition. I did not find that type of support in my constituency. The support was far from unanimous. If I repeated in this House some of the remarks made to me by farmers, Your Honour would undoubtedly call me out of order. The hon. member stated that members of this party were trying to foment antagonism with the farmers in connection with this bill. If there is any antagonism on the part of the farmer, that antagonism has been caused by the present government with its LIFT program, cheap barley sales and failure to appreciate the problems of the livestock industry in western Canada.
The hon. member for Assiniboia also indicated that there was considerable saving to be made by converting to the metric system. As reported at page 2423 of Hansard, he said:
I want to deal, as well, with the question of cost, which has been mentioned, or more particularly with cost savings. A lot of people have been skeptical about the matter. In response to that skepticism I have asked the committee of the Grains Council to demonstrate clearly where the cost savings are, and it has produced a detailed analysis which indicates an annual saving to the grains industry in the order of $1 million.
That is an interesting statement, but the hon. member did not produce any evidence in this House to support the findings of the grains group. He also spoke of education. I wonder what the cost of documents of this kind is to the taxpayers in order to try and educate the farmer with regard to the metric system. On December 21 the minister spoke in the House in support of this bill. I wish to quote from page 2229 of Hansard, where he stated:
Metric System
Increasing Canada's exports is also one of the key reasons why it makes good economic sense to go metric.
I challenge the minister to prove that the transfer to the metric system in the farming community will add one bushel of wheat to production, or one kernel of grain as far as our exports are concerned. For many years the grain trade has been selling on the export market using the metric system. Therefore, at this time it will not add to our exports.
What does this bill do? Basically, the bill amends the Wheat Board Act, the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act and the Western Grain Stabilization Act by substituting the word "hectares" for "acres" and "tonnes" for "bushels". Yesterday the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) spoke at length on our land titles system, the Torrens system. It is a system that has been effective and efficient over the years. It is one of the best registration systems in the world.
The land titles system is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces and can only be changed by the provincial legislatures. To do so would involve the changing of hundreds of thousands of titles at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars. However, if this bill goes through as it is, and undoubtedly it will unless the government accepts some amendments, hectares will be forced upon the farmers in the west, with the result that eventually the western land titles system will have to be changed. What will we then have in Canada? We will have two systems-in effect, a dual system. The Canadian Wheat Board area, namely the prairies, will be using hectares for the measurement of area and the rest of Canada will be using the acreage measurement.
Land in western Canada was surveyed many years ago before it was homesteaded. It was surveyed into mile-square blocks of 640 acres. Then, of course, there is the half-section, the quarter-section and the legal subdivision. These units cannot easily be converted to the metric system. For example, if my mathematics is correct, one section, or 640 acres, will equal 258.8080 hectares.
The farmer in western Canada has used the measurement of acres all his life. He can walk into a field, look at it and say "there are 'X' number of acres in that parcel of land." It is a system with which he is familiar. He can make one pass with a piece of machinery through a field and, knowing the width of the machine, can say that he has cultivated, combined or swathed "X" number of acres. However, if he has to use hectares, what will happen? The powers that be have suggested a simple method. I have here a pamphlet entitled "The Metric System for Farmers". It states:
Probably the best way for you to visualize a hectare, is to put red flags on the fence posts at the four corners of an area measuring one hectare. Each time you look at these flags you will become more familiar with the hectare.
I wonder whether the government is planning to supply red flags to the farmers in western Canada. There is also an effect on the calibration of sprayers used for spraying pesticides and herbicides. The sprayers are all based on acres. Herbicides and pesticides are all packaged in Imperial measure. What will happen when they are sold by the litre instead of by the gallon? The farmer has a choice. He can take a gallon-measur-

January 27, 1977
Metric System
ing can and pour the pesticide or herbicide into the can, thus measuring a gallon, but this is a dangerous practice because in most cases he is dealing with a dangerous poison which must be handled with care. Alternatively, he can make a calculation to convert litres or kilograms into the Imperial system. This is a calculation which involves fractions or decimals and there is a great possibility of error in doing the calculation. If there is a mistake and the chemical is too strong, it will kill the plant. If it is not strong enough, it will be ineffective. An error in calculation could be very costly.
If a farmer buys registered seed, he will be buying it in kilograms. For comparative purposes in measuring the success of his crop from one year to another he will have to convert tonnes per hectare into bushels per acre. What will the bill accomplish in its present form? It will do nothing except cause inconvenience and frustration to farmers. It will add nothing to their efficiency. It will not add one penny to their sales.
I ask hon. members to examine the bill carefully and read some of the material which has been published in connection with it. I quote from a pamphlet entitled "Metric Conversion and the Grain Market" put out by the Canadian Livestock Feed Board and having to do with grain transportation. It reads in part:
The grain transport industry will continue to use the present system for some years yet. No official date has been set for the rail and road transport systems to go metric in freight rate quotations. When the metric system is introduced, the maritime tariffs will be posted in both Imperial and metric terms.
As the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) said a few minutes ago, the elevators will continue to purchase grain in tons and convert in into bushels when it is loaded on to the cars. Subsequently it will be reconverted into metric form at the export end. Since this is the situation, why should it be necessary to move the metric system back into the farmyard? Why not buy from the farmer in bushels and let him continue to use acres? We see here another example of a government of bureaucrats and academics interfering with the producer. I must say that in this case they are aided by the grain companies. Some years ago, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said the government had no place in the bedrooms of the nation. I say the government has no place in the farmyard. I do not object to metrication beyond the local elevator stage. This makes sense; The grain trade wants it and has been using it for years in connection with export markets. But for heaven's sake leave the producer alone. I might say that it is our intention, when this bill gets to report stage, to put forward amendments which would have the effect of letting the farmer continue to use "acres" and "bushels".
The minister and others on the government side have indicated that there is an urgency attached to this measure and that the bill must be passed by February 1. Presumably, Mr. Speaker, the work which has been done in the grain trade and by the Wheat Board in converting to the metric system has gone on for a considerable time, possibly for some months. Why has the government waited until the eleventh hour before bringing in this legislation? Surely parliament is entitled to
(Mr. Neil.]
have the opportunity and the time to discuss such an important piece of legislation without being under pressure. I like to think that we live under a democratic system in this country, but it seems to me, when I see the government legislating increasingly by way of regulation and bringing in bills at the eleventh hour, the subject matter of which is a fait accompli, that the virtues of our democratic system can no longer be taken for granted.


Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I want to register my protest against this type of legislation. We come back to Ottawa and find ourselves called upon to discuss television in the chamber and conversion to the metric system. Surely, with the country facing the desperate problems of which we are all aware, there should be more substantive issues to be debated here.
Bill C-23 makes changes in a number of acts including the Canadian Wheat Board Act, the Gas Inspection Act, the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, the Regional Development Incentives Act, the Two-Price Wheat Act, the Weights and Measures Act, and the Western Grains Stabilization Act. This is an important bill for grain producers in particular and for agriculture generally. We in western Canada know that "metric day" for the grain industry is February 1, 1977. Yet here we are debating second reading of this bill on January 27, 1977, with just a few days to go. The bill has to be passed before all the arrangements which have been made are legal.
The government knew this long ago. We might well ask why such a long delay has occurred. I do not know where all the other industries are going in this metric conversion process, but I do know that the grain industry is going to get there first. The government has so little respect for agriculture that it has not seen fit to appoint a new deputy minister to the department. We have been without one for two months following the disaster of the last deputy minister.
This is something which must give producers across the country cause to ponder. Where are we in the grain industry going? After the expenditure of hundreds of millions of taxpayers' money on hopper cars, railway trackage and improvements on the west coast, I find that though we used to export 30 million bushels a month from Vancouver, the average so far this year has been 17 million bushels a month-and this is without interference from labour problems or railway problems. With a little more help like metric conversion we shall be right out of business. We find vessels waiting at Vancouver and giving rise to demurrage charges up to $10,000 a day in some cases. All this has to be paid by the western farmer.
We are told by the government that metric conversion is good for us. Well, Mr. Speaker, we do not really need much more of this kind of help from the government. The very disappointing final payment on bread wheat is one small symptom of the malaise in the great grain industry that we used to have. Metric conversion is just another cross for the western producer to bear, another millstone around his neck.
January 27, 1977

As has been said before, our customers have always been able to buy our grain on the basis of metric tonnes, short tons, long tons-any way they wanted. I see no reason to go right back to the producer to change our system. Not only will this change not produce one extra bushel of grain or generate one dollar more of revenue for the producers, but it is going to cost them plenty. It will cost at least $1,000 for every country elevator that we have. We have 3,000; that amounts to $3 million. It will cost each producer at least $100. We have 150,000 of them, so there is another $15 million. Throw in the terminal conversion and you have $20 million right off the bat. That is a lot of money to spend at this time.
Mention has been made of the fact that our land has been surveyed under the Torrens system of miles. We have had a ten-unit system in western Canada for years. We have had telephone poles down every road allowance at steps of ten acres per half-mile. Generations of farmers will be converting back to acres and to bushels because they will see these measurements every time they step on to their land. The people of western Canada are not going to ask for so many litres of gas for their cars; they are going to ask for $5 or $7 worth of gas. They will find their way around this, and I suggest the farmers will do the same thing.
I plead with the government to exempt land measurement from the metric conversion, just as the United States of America will do. It is the same old, familiar story and it is one of the reasons why this government is in so much trouble today. The person required to pay the shot is having less and less of a say as to how his money is being spent. All we hear is that the government knows what is good for us.
I do not see why we cannot have voluntary conversion at the producer level, Mr. Speaker. I can see companies like Massey-Harris, Ford, machine companies and international manufacturers pushing this sort of a deal, but I cannot see why we do not implement it slowly and have voluntary conversion at the producer level.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) has already said that there is a great difference between sitting in a nice, warm office with a calculator, and standing out in a cold, dusty Saskatchewan field trying to calculate chemical conversions. Ounces and acres are well understood in Saskatchewan; it is a tried and true system. One mistake in the calculation of a chemical formula and a farmer's crop could be gone.
I want to go back and refer to some of the information that has been put out and supplied to producers across the country. I have one pamphlet which is headed "Getting Ready for Metric Conversion", and it reads as follows:
How many tonnes of wheat, barley, or oats will your truck hold?
Simple!. .. Suppose you find the truck box is 246 cm by 524 cm, or in metres that's 2.46 m by 5.24 m. Calculate the area of the box floor in square metres by multiplying 2.46 x 5.24 and you will get 12.89 m2.
Now, say you have a level load of wheat that is 1.20 m. (120 cm) deep. How many tonnes are in the box? That depends on how much volume of grain will give one tonne. So you need to know the volume, which is easily found by
Metric System
multiplying the floor area (12.89 m2) by the depth (1.20 m) and you get 15.47 m3.
How many tonnes in 15.47 m3 of wheat? This table will help.
Then a table follows. It goes on to say that using the same table a farmer can calculate the depth of one tonne of grain in his truck box in this way:
-We have a floor area of 12.89 m2 that will be loaded with wheat that has a volume of 1.30 m3 per tonne.
To find the depth of one tonne of wheat, divide its volume by the area of the truck box floor-
In the particular case cited you take 1.30 metres, superscript 2, over 12.89 metres, superscript 2, and you get 0.10 metres, or 10 centimetres. The pamphlet continues.
For a truck box like the one in our illustration, a measuring stick marked at 10 cm intervals will indicate how many tonnes of wheat the truck holds.
I hesitate to repeat this, Mr. Speaker, because it was referred to by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), but it does fascinate me.
You can use a broom-handle or some other straight stick to make a measuring stick for each crop you handle. Remember, each stick is good only for the truck (or bin) for which it is made.


Mr. McKinley:: You will have to carry around a golf-bag full of sticks.


Frank Fletcher Hamilton: Yes. Then, Mr. Speaker, the pamphlet tells you how to measure your land in metric using the formula of width, times length, in metres, divided by 10,000, giving the area in hectares. The pamphlet continues:
If you don't have the measurements in metres, you can make a conversion using one yard equals 0.91 metre. If you have your land area in acres, multiply the acreage by 0.405 to get the area in hectares. As a rule of thumb, there are 2.5 acres in a hectare.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, where are we going on this thing? This pamphlet is but one of a flood of pamphlets, letters and brochures that have been distributed in western Canada. I have been in almost every country which is a major buyer of Canadian grain. I was chairman of the Board of Grain Commissioners for several years and one of my responsibilities was to help promote Canadian grains in world markets. During my term of office we set many records for exports which have not been surpassed to this day. I have also been a farmer; I have raised many fields of grain in my lifetime. I have been to university and I have been to the odd goat-roping contest; but I can tell hon. members that I do not know what these formulas mean, and they certainly will not mean much to the farmers of western Canada. If it is such a big deal for everyone to convert to the metric system, just think how much more important it would be if we all spoke the same language.
Mention has been made of the railways. Mr. Jim Wright, who is secretary of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, is reported in a Free Press report on farming, dated December 22 last, as saying:
Mr. Wright also expressed concern about the fact the railways don't go metric until 1981. "Right off the bat we'll have a problem because we'll be talking metric and they'll be talking pounds.''

Metric System
He said attempts to have the railways bill elevators for the movement of grain on a per tonne or per kilogram basis have failed, because much of their rail traffic is non-grain and has not yet converted to metric.
The Regina Leader-Post carried an article on this subject, part of which is as follows:
Strong objections to the metric conversion program came from Larry Brown, executive secretary of the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour.
Mr. Brown said metric conversion's main purpose is to facilitate trade between large multinational corporations and will have little impact on individual Canadians.
"If there is any benefit at all to individual working Canadians, it's extremely remote," he said.
While some unionized workers have contracts requiring their employers to pay all or part of the cost of new, metric tools, he said many workers have no such agreements or are outside unions. Many workers will have to keep dual sets of metric and Imperial tools until vehicles and construction supplies in Imperial dimensions have disappeared, he added.
All one need do, Mr. Speaker, is think of the number of dual inventories which will have to be kept across this country to get some idea of the cost of metric conversion to this nation. In conclusion, I would ask the government to give us in western Canada a break. Would the government at least give us some assurance that our land will be exempt from metric conversion, that there will be no change to our land tenure system? Earlier today the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain, did not give that assurance. I hope we will get that assurance from the government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Before recognizing the hon. minister, I must advise hon. members that if he speaks now he will automatically close the debate.


Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I just want to reiterate what I said a little while ago when kibitzing with some of my colleagues across the floor on the other side. I said that you white people sure have caused us Indians a lot of problems.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Len Marchand: I do not want to take a lot of time in closing the debate on second reading. I have listened to many concerns expressed by members on the other side and I know that the farmers of this country have some apprehension about this change that will be taking place. Change very often does cause difficulty. I recall the change from Fahrenheit to Celsius when all kinds of concerns were expressed by the general population. It is my hope that during the committee hearings we will be able to explain and deal with many of the points that have been raised by hon. members.
It is my belief that some pretty good explanations can be given about the suggested changes and the planning that has taken place and, hopefully, we can go ahead with this legislation in the spirit with which the metric commission has proceeded and in which the various sector groups have operated. In fact, the sector committee on agriculture has been

working on this for a few years. That committee has been heavily involved in planning for those changes being implemented that will affect the farmers.
I know that some at the farming level suggested that appropriate consultation has not taken place. If hon. members are telling me this, I believe them; but that certainly was not the intent. A great deal of information has been sent out to farmers and their organizations have been consulted. We have widely canvassed farm organizations throughout the country, including the National Farmers Union, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and others. For example, the grain elevator companies are definitely in favour of this legislation. They are anxious to have it implemented by February 1 so that at least this part of the metric conversion program can go ahead. As a matter of fact, they are all geared up and ready to move.
Because of the nature and quantity of planning that has taken place involving the general farming public, hopefully this change can take place with a minimum of difficulty and with a minimum of partisanship. It is certainly not our intention to move ahead in any partisan way. Hopefully, in committee we can explain how the changes will take place. We will adopt a flexible attitude, and perhaps after some explanation regarding the difficulties involved we will be able to arrive at solutions. We have looked at some of the experiences of other countries.


An hon. Member:: Are you going to preserve the acre?


Len Marchand: We will have a look at that and discuss it very thoroughly. We have already asked some experts of the metric commission and of the grain trade to be ready to give the explanations necessary and outline some of the difficulties involved in mixing the system, such as using acres and tonnes or tonnes and bushels. We would like to avoid confusion as much as possible. But by mixing the system we are bound to introduce some degree of confusion. For instance, if we are going to have tonnes and acres there is bound to be confusion.
I am told that other countries, for instance Australia, have gone cold turkey all the way. They have gone full metric and have experienced less difficulty in the implementation of their program over the long-term, as opposed to the United Kingdom where there has been a bit of a mixed system. They tried to maintain some of the Imperial system terminology and have had difficulty. The change has not been as successful as it might have been. The conclusion we have come to in looking at the experience of other countries is that we should avoid mixing the system, and I hope this can be explained fully by the experts in the committee.
Several of my friends across the way have suggested that we are not going to sell more grain as a result of conversion. I admit that fact and realize that grain has been selling throughout the world on a metric system for years. We admit that this will not sell more grain. The selling of grain around the world does not depend on metric conversion; it depends on markets, whether Russia and China have good or bad crops.
If hon. members look a little closer at the statements I have made they will see I have suggested there are opportunities in

other areas if we go metric. I am told, for instance, that in the lumber trade there are opportunities in the European markets if we are able to make more materials available in metric measurement. There are opportunities in other areas as well.
It has been said many times that we are one of the last countries in the world to go metric. The United States is also going metric and is well on the way. We hope we can remain a step ahead of the United States in the change so that we will be ahead in at least our metric conversion program. We have very close liaison with the United States on metric conversion. They have been in touch with our people, particularly those in the grain trade. We still hope we can take the lead in this regard, but the United States will not be far behind in converting.
I have some rather extensive notes dealing with a number of points that have been made, but rather than try to deal with them all during this debate I will leave them until we have an opportunity to answer in committee. Hopefully, the committee stage will not be prolonged. It is hoped that its deliberations will be shortened by having experts in attendance who can answer questions to the satisfaction of the farmers and others.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being five o'clock, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Cros-bie)-Fisheries-Proposed plan for compensation for fishermen engaged in redfish fishery-Request for report; the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes)-Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Objection to documentary on French culture in village of Paincourt; the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek)-External Affairs- Reason for alleged secret expulsion from Canada of Mr. Perdomo, representative of Cuba.
Bell Canada
It being five o'clock, this House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills, notices of motions and public bills.


PRIVATE BILLS
Hon. Martin O'Connell (Scarborough) moved: that Bill S-2, an act respecting Bell Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
He said: Mr. Speaker, before reviewing the highlights of Bill S-2 relating to Bell Canada I would like to provide some brief background information on the company and the bill. In addition, Mr. Speaker, because a private bill such as this must of necessity be sponsored by a private member, I should perhaps state that I have not been, and am not now, a shareholder of Bell Canada or its affiliates and have no pecuniary interest in the bill before us.
Bell Canada was incorporated in 1880 by a special act of parliament which has since been amended 12 times to increase its authorized share capital and to update its charter. The last time the company applied to parliament for amendments to its act of incorporation was in 1968 when it was authorized, among other things, to increase its capital and to issue preferred stock. The company's intention to proceed with these proposed amendments was widely advertised in various newspapers and government official gazettes during four consecutive weeks last fall, following which the bill was introduced in the other place and received third reading on December 15, 1976.
As to the bill itself, it has four main purposes: first, to increase the maximum authorized share capital of the company; second, to modernize the financing provisions of its charter; third, to update the corporate powers; and fourth, to enable the company to alter its objects, powers and share capital by letters patent subject, however, to cancellation by a negative resolution in either house of parliament.
Bell Canada requests authorization to increase its share capital to $5 billion from the present limit of $1.75 billion. Since 1945 increased share capital authorizations have been applied for and granted by parliament about every decade. The increase of $3.25 billion now being sought by the company is prompted by the need to finance part of the huge capital programs required to provide the services expected by the public. The company's business is highly capital-intensive and requires the investment of massive amounts of money which are provided by internally-generated funds on the one hand and by debt and equity financing on the other hand. The company forecasts capital expenditures of $15 billion over the

Bell Canada
next decade. It anticipates that it will exhaust its current limit of $1.75 billion of share capital by the end of 1978.
In order to obtain large sums from the capital markets to meet increasing demands for telecommunication services, Bell Canada must compete both at home and abroad with other firms and governments which enjoy a much greater financial flexibility. For example, under its present charter Bell Canada cannot issue shares other than common shares of $25 par value and preferred shares, nor can it split its shares or consolidate them. It cannot borrow under the authority of a general borrowing by-law. Accordingly, a certain number of proposed amendments are designed to equip the company with similar financing flexibility to that enjoyed by practically every company nowadays. May I point out also that most of these financing amendments are similar or identical to the provisions of Bill S-ll, an act respecting British Columbia Telephone Company adopted by parliament in December, 1974.
Included in these financing amendments is a provision enabling the company to issue its share capital in the future without CRTC approval, although within the $5 billion limit set out in this bill. Since 1929 the company has been required under its charter to obtain the approval of the regulatory body, formerly the Canadian Transport Commission, with respect to the amount, terms and conditions of each stock issue. This requirement was understandable and relevant in the circumstances down to the year 1966 when its relevancy disappeared.
The purpose of the CRTC approval of share issues was to ensure that the company would not sell new stock at a price, for example at a low price, which would impose undue costs on its customers. This was during the time when the company's earnings and rates were regulated on the basis of the total number of shares outstanding. Since May, 1966, however, the formula adopted by the regulatory body for regulating earnings and rates has completely changed. The company's permitted earnings are now stated as a percentage of the total amount of capital invested in the business and not at all related to the number of shares outstanding. The result is that the continuing requirement for CRTC approval of share issues is now redundant. This matter will, as in the past, be dealt with by the ceiling provided from time to time and by authorization received from the company's shareholders.
At this point I should like to emphasize that repeal of this requirement would leave absolutely intact the CRTC's jurisdiction over the company's rates for services offered to the public. All of that essential regulatory process would remain intact. But this single change of eliminating approval of specific stock issues would do more than terminate a practice that has lost its relevancy because of the new rate-regulating formula. It would also preclude delays associated with public hearings, thereby assuring more flexibility in the timing of a stock issue, often important for advantageous pricing in the market and for staying within the short time limits provided for in underwriting agreements. This gain in flexibility is important as the competition for equity capital becomes more intense.
The third aim of the bill is to modernize the corporate powers of the company through the incorporation into its charter of section 16 of the Canada Corporations Act. The amendment proposed to achieve this objective would clarify and broaden the existing ancillary and incidental powers of the company. It would allow the company to invest in other companies having objects in whole or in part similar to those of Bell Canada. It would enable Bell Canada to implement government policy regarding the provisions of computer services by communication carriers through separate arm's length affiliates.
The application of section 16 of the company would, in effect, place it on the same level as most other companies which can carry out their objects in the most appropriate manner without being hampered by the constraints which presently preclude Bell Canada, except in very limited cases, from incorporating or acquiring subsidiaries to perform activities it could undertake itself.
O)
The powers sought here would only be exercisable as incidental and ancillary to the objects set out in the company's charter. These powers were, in essence, made applicable to Telesat Canada, a federally-regulated telecommunications carrier.
Finally, the last purpose of the bill is to authorize the company to alter its objects, powers and share capital in the future by applying to the minister of consumer and corporate affairs who is the registrar general for letters patent, which would however be subject to being nullified by either House of parliament during a period of 30 sitting days following their tabling in parliament. This is the negative resolution procedure which is found in one form in the Telesat Canada Act and in a modified and detailed version recently provided in the Income Tax Conventions Act, 1976. The proposed change would not deprive parliament of its control over the company's charter but, rather, would modify the manner in which such control would continue to be exercised.
Mr. Speaker, these are the highlights of Bill S-2. Hon. members will appreciate that full opportunity will be given to examine the bill in detail when it is dealt with in committee, where the company's chief officers will make themselves available as witnesses. These proposed amendments update the capital and the powers of Bell Canada. They provide it with the financing and corporate flexibility required in the field of telecommunications today and for the future. They leave intact the essential regulatory role of the CRTC while equipping the company to meet the service needs of Canadians in the period ahead.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recommend these amendments to the consideration of hon. members.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell) on Bill S-2 which had its birth in the other place. I know others will be participating in

January 27, 1977

this debate and might make some irrelevant comments about the birth of such a bill in the other place, and will undoubtedly colour the air with purple prose on the relationship of such bills and corporate legislation starting in the other place. But I do not intend to make prolonged remarks at this stage on the stand of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition on Bill S-2 because, basically, as the hon. member for Scarborough East said, the motion is to refer this bill to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications which will give a better opportunity for us to make a more exhausive study of certain aspects of this complicated bill.
Having been in this chamber for a few years, I know that every time "Mother Bell" is mentioned there is no doubt this gives an opportunity to any politican to wax eloquent and often irresponsible about that Canadian company. Like the hon. member for Scarborough East, I speak as one of those commoners in the land who does not have a pecuniary interest in the company other than to pay my telephone bill in Ontario, because another telephone company sends me its bills in Atlantic Canada.
I think the Bell Telephone Company is a perfect example of a schizophrenic personality, which is often that of a Canadian politician. It is both remarkable and paradoxical that often those who champion and espouse the so-called nationalism and proclaim all the great sentiments and strong views about being Canadian and about freedom from coast to coast-and, incidentally, having a good telephone service from coast to coast- are the very people, and we may hear from some in this chamber, who as soon as "Mother Bell" is mentioned will say that she is an unhealthy or tainted woman with a tainted heritage and that she is wearing soiled clothes.
Without getting into a provocative debate on this issue with the hon. member for Scarborough East, let me say that Bill S-2 has four main aims, as the hon. member said.
I must confess that I cannot give a full and detailed explanation of the first one in terms of what the corporate wizards could do with some of the changes to the capital procedure, but I know that unless parliament moves on Bell Telephone's request for increased capital authorization, hon. members will be asking in this chamber why certain communities were not hooked up to the telephone service and why this company does not provide the service that we expect from it. The request by the company to increase its authorized capital from $1.75 billion to $5 billion involves the international workings of the company and its construction program for the next ten years.
Any hon. member here would be handicapped in trying to justify such a fundamentally large construction program, and the only people who can do that are the officers of the company who will appear before the committee. I will not get into a debate with the hon. member for Scarborough East on this subject, but I did ask, as a matter of historical interest, about the history of charter amendments of the company and I find myself with somewhat different information from that given to us by the hon. member for Scarborough East. I thought there were only ten changes. For the record, I will spell out the ten changes in the charter of the company which
Bell Canada
perhaps show the rate of inflation in this country as well as the development of the Bell Telephone Company from its origin as an innovater and leader way back at its inception. It also shows what has happened with the value of money and the size of the company today.
The first authorization for an increase in capital was in 1880, and it was for $1 million. In 1884 it went up to $2 million. In 1892 we moved ahead to $5 million, and in 1902 to $10 million. In 1906 we went up to $30 million, and in 1920- a longer gap than the decade mentioned by the hon. member- we went up to $75 million. In 1929 we went up to $150 million. Then there was a long gap when we had a depression and a war. In 1948 the next change in the charter to increase the capital was for $500 million. In 1957 we went up to $1 billion, and the last change that has been mentioned was in 1968, to $1.75 billion. Now the proposed change is to $5 billion.
I am advised by officers of the Bell Company that while this is a pretty healthy leap forward in terms of the corporate authorization, in terms of continuing and expanding the service, it will just provide the basis for the capital works program in the next ten years. I should like to hear the responsible officers come before the committee with research on some of the intricate provisions, so that we may be able to ask sensible questions of them and hear their reasons for the increase from $1.75 billion to $5 billion.
I do not find any real objection to modernizing the financial provisions of the act by putting the company in the same position as the B.C. Telephone Company and incorporating similar provisions to those in the Canada Corporations Act. Some reason that this bill would put Bell into the same position as other companies in terms of competing for funds in the money markets so that it could compete and not be penalized when getting equity capital and thereby it would not have to charge that much, hopefully, to its subscribers. I agree with that argument to a point, but without getting into all the statistics of the uniqueness of Bell Telephone, it is clear that Bell is not like all the other companies. Perhaps that is one of the reasons we have this archaic procedure-and there is no disrespect intended to the hon. member for Scarborough East. However, the only way the federal charter can be changed is for it to come through these halls under a private member's bill and to have it sponsored here.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Nationalize it.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Having been in some countries which have nationalized their telephone systems, and in at least two provinces of this country where the telephone systems are nationalized, and having used those telephone systems, I have no faith at all in government-run telephone systems providing better service to the average person-


An hon. Member:: What about Alberta?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: -than the service we get from Bell.

January 27, 1977
Bell Canada


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It is much better.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The hon. member will have a chance to speak in the debate. I am referring to the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) who is from the nationalized state of Saskatchewan. It does not really matter what part you are from, once you leave the cities, because it is pretty well blended into the socialistic porridge pot-and porridge is pretty bland. However, there is not a person who has travelled around the world and who has used the telephone systems in other parts of the world who can show me a telephone system better than the Bell Telephone system.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: By saying that, I do not claim to be an apologist for Bell.


Mr. Parent:: What about the one in Russia?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: We do not have to go to Russia: we can go to France, Great Britain or Saskatchewan. Some hon. members could go further than that where there are no telephones, because they do not need telephones to be heard.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Be that as it may, this is basically a corporate bill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: My hon. friends are already starting to attack the walls of capitalism. It is interesting to note the schizophrenic character of this country and of hon. members who think they have a monopoly on ideology. I can mention parts of this bill which give me a great deal of concern, but in terms of my trying to talk in a knowledgeable way about whether at this stage authorizing an increase in authorized capital from $1.75 billion to $5 billion I do not know if I or my friends can make knowledgeable comments.
This bill was debated in the other place by senators. I know hon. members to my left do not have a senator there, and if the House leader of the New Democratic Party, the shadow leader-not the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), but his seatmate-had his way, of course there would not be a Senate. However, even in that chamber of sober second thought many thought that Bell Telephone was controlled by I.T. and T. Evidently they forgot the fact that Bell Telephone is owned 98 per cent by John Q. Canadian, or Mr. Canadian. However, I will not go too far with that.
With regard to modernizing the financial provisions, I will be interested at the committee stage to see just what the officers say about these things. If changes can be made to keep Bell in a competitive position in financial markets by seeking equity capital without penalty to its subscribers, including the widows and orphans of this land who sometimes use the telephone, then I will be in favour of that; but I think we have to listen to the argument that under the Canada Corporations Act all companies are supposed to be put into a similar

position. Obviously, Bell Canada is not a company like others, and that is both its curse and its challenge. It is a curse to those who want to curse a very efficient company which provides us with good service, yet it is a challenge to Bell's developing further. There is a little conflict here and I will be interested to see how the evidence comes out.
As the hon. member says, the reason we can have this change now is that the rate of return is on a different base, and because it is on a different base-which was, I think, set in 1966, which was the effective time change for the rate not being based on the return of issued shares but on equity capital and investment capital-you do not have to be quite as careful in giving a very large potential increase in the authorized capital permissible under the act.
I am more concerned about the last two purposes of the bill, the changes in the ancillary powers of the company and also the method provided to change the charter in the future. Very quickly, this question of allowing the company to broaden its powers-and, again, using the Canada Corporations Act as the base to give the powers, as is the case with other companies-I think has to be watched fairly carefully. We are in an uncharted world as a result of changing technology, and today we are asked to incorporate section 16 of the Canada Corporations Act which would allow the company to invest in other companies having objects altogether, or in part, similar to those of this company. That is, in effect, the purpose of these changes. Yet we have had, and will continue to have, in this House questions, answers and debates as to the literal interpretation of "broadcasting." The Broadcasting Act was passed in 1966, and the word "cable" does not even appear in it.
We have here a communications company, Bell, which missed a golden opportunity when it did not get into cable years ago when telephone companies had the first crack at it. Other telephone companies as well would not touch cable with a ten-foot pole. Hon. members to my left would not touch it even with a ten-foot telephone pole. Hon. members to my left would not appreciate this, but it was small entrepreneurs who took the chance and the risk, and that has made Canada the leader in the world with regard to cable.
I know at the moment there are socialist governments in certain parts of the country who would like to reverse this clock and get provincial telephone companies directly into the cable field. I am prepared to say, with no fundamental disrespect-other than that I think it is wrong-that if the provincial telephone companies get into those areas they will not be able to provide the service that subscribers are getting from small cable companies. At the moment some areas do not even have cable service because of this jurisdictional fight.
I feel that there is one area which has to be watched cautiously. Using the argument that these changes will put Bell into the same position as other companies-and I am prepared to admit that Bell is not the same as other companies-I think parliament has a duty, and when we get into committee we should examine the officers of the company as to the full implications of these ancillary powers with special reference to Bell as a telephone company which obviously has
January 27, 1977

an interest in the computer field and now would perhaps like to develop an interest in the cable area.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Not an interest, a monopoly.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: You have monopolies in Manitoba and Saskatchewan with your phone companies. The section which gives me the greatest concern-and, as outlined in the bill, would not get my support-is the section the hon. member for Scarborough East mentioned. I refer to the procedural clause which in effect sets up a negative resolution whereby the company could hereafter change its objects, let alone its purposes. So far as I am concerned, we ought to look with a negatively critical eye at that clause requiring the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Abbott) to bring before this House for a certain period of scrutiny the letters patent.
Let me hasten to add that Bell is not like other companies. It provides good service, and needs funds to continue that service. I know that the company wants immediately a more expeditious way for changing its charter. It wants to be more businesslike in providing good service for the Canadian people. Yet Bell is not like other companies, and is not analagous to Telesat. It may be intended to follow the Telesat precedent. However, Telesat is unique, and Telesat really is not part of the commercial world. That satellite is in orbit in the heavens, providing channels of communication on a commercial basis to large organizations, including the CBC.


John R. Rodriguez: And Bell.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: And Bell. Really, I am concerned about the negative provision of the bill. Bell as a company is intimately involved with consumers in Ontario and Quebec. I question the wisdom of the negative provision of the bill; after all, the company is involved in the field of communications and we do not know what fundamental changes may come about even three years down the road.
In 1968, when I participated in debate on the Broadcasting Act, the House was not thinking of the effect of satellites, communication by satellite, and the computer technology which has burst forth on the horizon. Yet we all know that this new technology is fundamentally important now to the communications industry, but it has also created some new problems. Therefore by giving the company certain powers by way of a negative resolution you would enable it to change its charter, let alone the purposes of its creation. If you go that far, any pretense of parliamentary direction and/or control will go out of the window. But that is a procedural point which does not go to the principle of the matter, namely, that Bell needs money in order to continue good service. The company may be somewhat extravagant, to my way of thinking-


An hon. Member:: Extravagant?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: -extravagant in asking for unrestricted ancillary powers which, obviously, would make Bell bigger.


An hon. Member:: Who needs it?
Bell Canada


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The hon. member's party in Manitoba-


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


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: What's the matter, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I regret to inform the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired. Nevertheless, he may continue if he has unanimous consent.


John R. Rodriguez: Continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak too long, because I know my friend to my left is chafing at the bit. The party to my left cannot wait to add its constructive thoughts to what has already been said. I will not impose on the good graces of hon. members who have allowed me extra time, because I know that we want to hear other points of view on this bill.
I see no fundamental objection to the request concerning authorized capital. After all that goes to the root of our present debate. I think the provision regarding ancillary powers must be looked at with a critical eye. Certainly the negative resolution provision as presently contained in the Bill S-2 ought to be revised. I am aware of the company's interest in a procedure which will allow it to make certain changes expeditiously. However, as a parliamentarian not involved with the company, I want to see the maintenance of parliamentary direction and control. If the negative resolution provision presently contained in the bill is allowed to remain, you may as well kiss such parliamentary control goodbye.


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to make some remarks on Bill S-2 concerning the financing powers of Bell Canada.
The previous speaker tried to leave the impression that Bell is mainly concerned about modernizing and changing some of the legislation which affects the way Bell raises its capital. I submit that is not the essential point of this bill. In essence, we are determining to what degree we shall still be able to maintain effective regulation over Bell Canada as it changes its capacity to raise funds. That, it seems to me, is the crux of the matter about which hon. members ought to be cautious before rushing ahead and changing existing legislation.
Bill S-2 has three main aims; I will enumerate them, in order to elaborate my concerns about the contents of the bill. First, the bill would allow Bell to borrow, issue stock, bonds, debentures and other securities as the company itself deems necessary, but without the approval of the regulatory agency, the CRTC.


An hon. Member:: Shame!

Bell Canada


Reginald Cyril Symes: Second, the bill would broaden the company's powers by revoking its present act of incorporation and placing Bell under the provisions of the Canada Corporations Act.
Third, the bill would allow Bell to charge the going rate of interest on overdue customer accounts, instead of the current rate of 6 per cent allowed by the CRTC.
What will be the effect if Bill S-2 passes? In my opinion Bill S-2 is an attempt by Bell to undermine the public regulation of that monopoly. In effect it would put Bell's corporate interest above that of its customers. Because Bell is a telecommunications monopoly, the only protection its subscribers have at this point is government regulation. I submit that the public regulation of Bell must not be lessened or weakened. How then would Bill S-2 weaken the public regulation of Bell Canada?
Let me deal with the first point I mentioned, the changes in Bell's method of capitalization. To see this in its proper context we should look at the history of the rate regulation of Bell. In 1919 the government regulated the earnings per share; this continued until 1966. That regulation was designed to protect the public by preventing Bell from making excessive profits per share. However, over the years Bell deliberately circumvented this means of regulation by watering the stock, that is to say, selling stock to existing shareholders at prices well below the market value and passing on monopoly profits in the form of capital gains rather than income. We find that in 1929 parliament revised the Bell act, to require regulatory approval for all issues of stock. In 1966 Bell succeeded in getting a revision of regulations, replacing control on earnings per share with percentage return on average total capital.
I submit that through this bill Bell wants to remove all regulation of what stocks Bell issues and at what price. What is the danger in this change? It is this. If the government is serious about regulating Bell in the public interest, it must regulate two things. It must regulate earnings per share and the issue price of equity, and not just the percentage return on capital, as is the present case.
If Bill S-2 passes, the CRTC will have no power to authorize the terms and conditions of new stock issues, that is to say, it will be unable to regulate Bell Canada effectively. I will give an example of how this will come about. What will happen is that Bell will issue preferred shares, with very large dividends. It will then be able to argue that common share dividends must exceed those of preferred shares or else investors will not convert their shares. The way that Bell will get common shares up in value will be to argue before the CRTC that it needs to increase subscribers' telephone rates. The NDP, therefore, in the interest of telephone subscribers must oppose this attempt by Bell to escape regulation.
The second change that the bill proposes is to change the act of incorporation under which Bell now lives. The present act states that, first, Bell Canada is to engage only in the provision of telecommunications service. Second, Bell is to act solely as a common carrier. Third, Bell is to own as subsidiaries only

companies engaged in telegraphic or telephonic communications.
What Bill S-2 wants to do is replace the above provisions under Bell's act of incorporation with the Canada Corporations Act. This would enable Bell to participate in any or all markets it wished to. In other words, Bell claims it should be treated as any other corporation.
Bell Canada by no flight of the imagination can be considered just like any other corporation. It is a monopoly, and a very powerful one at that. Ninety-three per cent of its revenue is based on telephone service. Only 7 per cent comes from competitive operations such as data services. It certainly cannot be considered like any other corporation in the private sector.
What are the implications of Bell coming under the provisions of the Canada Corporations Act? Bell could expand its operations and earning ability in areas which would be beyond present CRTC regulation. Bell could go before the CRTC and plead poverty on its telephone operations and thereby get a rate increase, when in fact it is making large profits from other investments which would not be taken into account by the CRTC. There is already ample evidence of this occurring within the present framework of operations of Bell Canada. I will give the example of Northern Electric.
In the past the Canadian Transport Commission, which used to regulate Bell, was very negligent in failing to take into account Bell's relationship with Northern Electric and its other subsidiaries when trying to assess Bell's profitability. For example, in 1974 Bell's share of net income from Northern Electric was in excess of $48 million, but the profitability of Bell's subsidiaries is never examined when Bell comes before the regulatory agency pleading for a rate increase.
It is my contention that the CRTC, which is now charged with examining Bell's rate increases, should be looking at its relationship with its subsidiaries, as well as at the other fact that has been neglected to date. That is the fact that Bell has been able to defer paying over $650 million taxes through a deferred tax scheme. This is no longer counted as a liability by accountants. In reality what Bell has here is an interest free loan that has never been taken into account when the government assesses Bell's profitability.
Looking at Bell's profit over the past few years, I submit it has been more than adequate. In 1975, for example, Bell's profit was $266,784,000, an increase of 18.9 per cent over
1974.	For the first nine months of 1976 its profit was $218,415,000 compared to $187,746,000 for the first nine months of
1975,	an increase of approximately 16 per cent.


John R. Rodriguez: And that in a period of controls.


Reginald Cyril Symes: As my colleague from Nickel Belt says, that was in a period of controls. Since Bell is a monopoly it cannot be treated as any other corporation. Therefore it must not come under the purview of the Canada Corporations Act.
The third thing Bill S-2 tries to do, as I mentioned, is change the charge on overdue accounts which is currently
January 27, 1977

limited at 6 per cent. Bell wants to raise it to the going rate, which I presume is somewhere around 11 per cent.


Mr. O'Connell:: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for interrupting, but I am sure the hon. member, by misunderstanding the clause, does not want to mislead us. It is not overdue customer accounts. It is the overdue accounts for shares of those who are subscribing to new shares.


Reginald Cyril Symes: I thank the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell) for that correction. I would not have much difficulty in hearing arguments along this line being put forward by Bell. This is one of the least distasteful parts of the bill. However, I would hope that we could have some kind of commitment from Bell for improvement of service.
In northern Ontario, for example, a situation has existed in the small communities with multiple party lines, where there are as many as ten or more people on one line. I think of people in rural areas who want telephones brought to their homes. In northern Ontario there is an example of one family being charged in excess of $1,000 a year. I might mention also the practice of requiring a $200 deposit from subscribers with overdue accounts. We might look at some of these practices in terms of a trade-off commitment from Bell before any increase in the company's power is permitted by way of a change in the infrastructure.
When I look at the history of Bell and the attempts made by government to regulate it, I find a history of efforts to evade or reduce public regulation of the company. This powerful monopoly has, I submit, been aided and abetted by its friends in the Senate who gave the bill before us only a cursory glance. Bill S-2, if allowed to pass in its present form would, I maintain, subvert the already weak regulatory authority upon which we as consumers have to rely when it comes to keeping this giant corporation in line. In the interest of good telephone service at affordable rates, I submit that the New Democratic Party cannot support a measure which would mean less public control over this powerful monopoly. We need more accountability from Bell, not less.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, it may be a little late and I do not want to kill this bill, but I want to say a few words about Bill S-2. It is very unusual to have a bill coming from the Senate. I am always surprised to see something coming out of the other place. I always wonder whether the senators do that for the sake of private or public interest. Anyway, I do not want to criticize the work of our good old senators, but I should only say, Mr. Speaker, that when we read Bell Canada's representations in this bill, they are asking that their charter be amended to be able to increase the capital stock from $3.25 billion to $5 billion.
In my opinion, this is a very considerable increase compared to the increases requested in previous years. I wonder whether Bell Canada wants to go into the electronic or other fields.
Bell Canada
This is a very important request and it deserves serious consideration by the government.
In the explanatory notes we can read this, and I quote:
This amendment would extend and update the borrowing powers of the Company.
Again, this is a request by the company which will enable them to expand very considerably their operations. If we knew the objectives of the telephone company in the most minute detail, and if the sole purpose were to improve telephone service, I would be very happy about it. But, as it is outlined further on, Bell Canada can invest in other companies. That is where the risk lies. It is quite easy for it to invest in other companies in an attempt to create a monopoly against which the government could not exert influence.
So far the government has been quite successful in supervising Bell Canada's operations. I am not prepared to admit that it has to be nationalized; on the contrary, I am against any nationalization. But I just want the House to realize that there are obviously place for improvement in the field of telephone lines. We like to say that we have a good telephone system, that Bell Canada is a good company, a good servant of the population. We must recognize also that it is well taken care of by the government. We must admit, when we see all the favours it obtains from the government, that it would be worthwhile to turn to the consumer and try giving him a little bit more satisfaction. I should like to deal briefly with rural services. I wonder if the House is aware of the fact that there still are rural areas where nine, ten or even twelve parties share the same line. One could understand that thirty years ago but today, with all the credits given the company, I feel it should make an effort to give better service.
I have had occasion to write repeatedly to their office begging them to give private lines, at least to merchants. It is hard to believe that a merchant should have had to share a party line with ten other subscribers, after waiting for a private line for three years. There is a limit to everything.
Mr. Speaker, I would not want that money ...


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has expired. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the Chair till 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
2466__________________________________________
Customs Tariff


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, October 28, 1976, consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) that Bill C-15, to amend the Customs Tariff, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. If I recognize the minister at this time I must inform the House that he will be closing the debate.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring a matter to the minister's attention. It concerns the Excise Tax Act and Customs Tariff, and I am wondering whether the minister is in a position to respond to it. It has to do with customs taxation of goods brought in for use in centres of rehabilitation and workshops. I should like to read a letter which has been brought to my attention, and I would appreciate the minister's response to it. It was referred to me by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) and was sent by the Canadian Council of Rehabilitation Workshops to the Minister of National Revenue (Miss Begin). Let me quote part of the letter:
The purpose of this letter is to bring to your attention certain exclusions in the guidelines under the Federal Excise Tax Act related to exemptions of Federal Sales Tax for institutions and facilities whose prime objective is the rehabilitation of handicapped or disadvantaged persons.
A number of the workshops or rehabilitation facilities in Canada are not involved in activities that produce an item that would be considered under the act. Specifically this would be the renovating or refurbishing of items for resale such as clothing, electrical appliances, furniture, etc. In the course of these activities they must utilize various supplies and equipment to carry out this function-
The letter goes on to say:
A further consideration is in the area of-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am just wondering whether the hon. member is speaking to the right bill. The bill the House is presently considering is Bill C-15, to amend the Customs Tariff, not the Excise Tax Act.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, my point does relate in a way, but if I can follow your guidance I will leave it until the House reaches Bill C-21. Alternatively, with Your Honour's permission, since I understand the other bill will be called shortly, perhaps I could continue and deal with it at this time, if there is no objection.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate even to think of allowing the hon. member to do so. It would be contrary to all the rules of the House to talk about one bill when we are debating another. I feel that we should complete this bill and that intervention should directly relate to its subject matter. This will not broaden the debate and will give the House a chance to complete the bill faster. I should bring it to the
[The Acting Speaker.]
attention of hon. members that the minister is about to reply, and that if he does so at this time he will be closing the debate.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I thank hon. members. I wanted to take this opportunity to comment on a matter of interest probably to members in all four corners of this House during this particular debate having regard to the changes proposed to the customs tariff in respect of pork and pork products.
Since the budget of May 25 last, there has been a substantial alteration in the position of pork markets in Canada, and far from being in a position now in which further cuts in the tariff would be required from the consumer standpoint there has, indeed, been a dramatic drop in the cost of pork and pork products. In the circumstances it would appear that in all fairness to pork producers, as I indicated in my second reading speech, it would be appropriate to take action for the purpose of removing the tariff reduction proposed by the bill.
There are two possible ways of doing this; first, with an amended notice of ways and means, and to amend the bill itself in the committee of the whole. The rather more simple way is to follow the procedure suggested in the bill itself, that is, to make provision for an order restoring the level of protection. Under the circumstances, the latter would appear to be the more appropriate. I would now indicate to the House in closing the debate that it would be my intention, as soon as the bill is passed, to seek from the Governor in Council the authority to restore the tariff level on pork in light of the change in the markets.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) wishes to ask a question of the minister, which can only be done with the consent of the minister and the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: By way of explanation would the minister indicate if this procedure is contemplated in respect of pork products alone, or is this a device he plans on utilizing in respect of textiles and shoes, for example, as a quick means of action without reference to the House by a ways and means motion?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the answer would be no. As I indicated in introducing the bill, the dropping of the protection was available under the act primarily with regard to food commodities, bearing in mind the rather mercurial nature of the food market. Of course this has been more than amply proven by the pork situation so a procedure was included in the bill, and is included in the appropriate clause to restore the protection. My intention would be to apply this with regard to pork only. As the hon. member knows, there are other commodities which are very much the subject of concern
January 27, 1977

and consideration on the part of the government, such as textiles and shoes. My view is that they would not be dealt with by way of a temporary tariff change withdrawal of this kind, but would require more fundamental measures which, of course, would be dealt with under other aspects of our law.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask the minister a brief question, if I may.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: How about the committee of the whole? That is what it is for.


A. Daniel McKenzie: We are going into the committee of the whole now?


An hon. Member:: Yes.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Laniel in the chair.
Gérald Laniel: The House in committee of the whole on Bill C-15, to amend the customs tariff.
On Clause 1-Schedule A amended.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, this is a very specific clause, I grant you, but there is one point that bothers me a little bit. Notwithstanding some very extensive remarks by members in the House generally, during which questions of principle were raised, the minister has not replied to those points in closing this debate. Unless I raise the matter at this point on Clause 1 we are not going to get the answers. I have specific reference to the point I made as reported in Hansard of Tuesday, October 26, during the second reading debate, as follows:
The minister has not spoken to us about what the government has foreseen with regard to the trade development pattern, not as of yesterday but in the three or four years during which we saw inflation rise at a gallop. I
I know that several of my colleagues have expressed some concern, and it may be that the hon. member for York-Simcoe will have a lot more to say about the nature of negotiations going on in Geneva at the present time under GATT.
There are a number of things that have worried hon. members and these have been expressed in other debates, and we have yet to receive adequate answers. Before we are prepared to discuss the detail under Clause 1 of this bill regarding items changed in Schedule A, I hope the minister will at least give us some indication of the answers he intends to provide, when he will provide them, and whether the government is prepared to allow some government time for a debate on international trade. I am quite serious when I suggest this must be done at this time. The budget debate of last June did not offer an opportunity. The minister in his presentation did not deal sufficiently with the nature of our international trade.
Customs Tariff
We have had some very worrisome deficits in the commodity account, and the whole financial picture in the country is predicated upon a changing pattern of international trade. As I said, I will come back to that later. I know there are some provincial governments which have expressed serious reservations about the nature and composition of the negotiations going on in Geneva. Provincial governments are not having any input whatsoever and items are being traded away, as they were under the Kennedy Round, at an accelerated rate, cutting across the industrial policies of particular provinces. I know the cattle industry was hurt badly, for example, at that time, and it is conceivable that it might be hurt again on this occasion.
I know that various provincial governments have industrial policies for the development of their resources, yet it seems that our negotiators do not even consult the provincial authorities in respect of what might be the best possible stance for Canada. To that extent I would hope the minister will tell us the government's intention regarding these consultations on trade.
There are many other points I raised in my speech. I hope the hon. member for York-Simcoe will elaborate on these particular points.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I would just remind the hon. gentleman that, indeed, we did debate in the House last fall the matter of the government's trade stance. In particular, we had an extensive presentation by a number of responsible members on this side of the House regarding the over-all tariff negotiations.
The hon. member has raised the suggestion that perhaps it would be appropriate to have a second such debate, several months having passed, with a new United States administration having been established. I am certainly prepared to consider that and, of course, to discuss with my colleague, the House leader, the question of additional time. It may well be that, negotiations under the Tokyo round having been at something of a standstill during the election in the United States and when they were active with the change of administration, it is apropos at this time. It seems to me we have here a specific set of tariff changes, specifically directed at the consumer sector, and primarily the food sector, for the purpose of meeting inflation problems in Canada. I wonder whether this bill is the best place for widespread debate on the over-all question of trade policy.
I would like to suggest, in light of the interest that some members have in trying to provide relief for pork producers, that it would be appropriate to pass this bill. The Leader of the Opposition has raised the question of when the next budget will be introduced. It seems to me we should not be introducing a new budget until we dispose of the bills arising from the May 25 budget. I would hope we might have some debate directed to the specific items in this bill and I would hope for a broad debate on the tariff bill, the Geneva negotiations, and our over-all trade policy in the near future.

January 27, 1977
Customs Tariff


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take up some of the remarks that my hon. colleague has already made. I think the House will understand our frustration in not being able to have what I would regard as a meaningful review of the total international picture surrounding Canada's trade with foreign nations, and the negotiations taking place in Geneva at the present time. While the minister referred to a debate last fall, he did not make it clear that that debate was triggered by this party using an opposition day to get some insight into what was transpiring with regard to international trade matters. I would point out that the Minister of Finance, who is primarily responsible for and who directs what is happening in Geneva, did not enter that debate. We still have not heard what he believes to be Canada's current position in the Geneva negotiations.
In short, Mr. Chairman, I believe there is an element of frustration here and that somehow the minister should try to relieve that frustration this evening by giving us at least a brief outline of what he feels the current stance is in the Canadian negotiations in Geneva, where he sees the problems, and where we might be making some headway. Before we get into the provisions of Bill C-15, I would hope that the minister, having failed to make any further comments at the conclusion of second reading, would at least review some of the comments made in the dozen or so speeches given on second reading.
The minister says that he hopes the bill will get speedy passage. I would remind all hon. members that it is not the opposition which has delayed the legislation. This bill has lain on the order paper for three months without being brought forward. Surely, 25 minutes after the bill coming up again for consideration after that three months delay, and the opposition not having delayed second reading, we should be entitled to some explanation on these two broad matters-first what the over-all stance is at the present time and the degree of success or failure we are meeting in Geneva and, second, a reply to some of the points raised in the dozen or so speeches on second reading.
Perhaps I could summarize our frustration this way, Mr. Chairman. This is literally the only jurisdiction in the democratic world, as far as I can make out, where there is no meaningful review of what our trade negotiators do when they enter the GATT negotiations. In the United States an act was passed through Congress which sets guidelines for the subsequent negotiations. They have an ongoing committee to review the GATT negotiations. Yet we in this House are asked to respond after decisions are made; we are asked to respond, for example, to a bill such as Bill C-15 after the government has decided to change tariffs in whatever way it sees fit.
We are frustrated because the Finance Committee of this House has been virtually idle during the second session of this parliament. We have done virtually nothing in that committee because, for some reason or other, the minister is not inclined to expedite business to the committee or even to appear, in the case of Bill C-5, to enable the bill to be continued with.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: They have to get through second reading in order to get to committee.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance says they have to get to committee. I would point out that this bill is before us in Committee of the Whole and we are asking the minister for comment on the subjects to which I have referred. Bill C-5 has been before the Finance Committee for some time and we cannot get the minister to appear so that we may have the benefit of his comments.
In short, Mr. Chairman, and following on the comments of my colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton West, I feel that it is very much in the interest of members of the House that the minister comment on the two subjects that have been raised. Certainly he need not be frightened that the bill is going to be delayed. It is a short bill. But he should take the opportunity to give members a little insight into what is happening in these rather secretive discussions in Geneva, and give the members who have raised questions on second reading the benefit of his comments.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, to deal with a couple of points raised by the hon. member, it is quite true that it was on an opposition day that hon. members opposite raised the question of trade policy. They raised it at a time when obligations outside this House prevented me from participating fully in the debate, but the government position was very ably set forth on that day by my parliamentary secretary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: He was ably supported by the hon. member for Eglinton who has had extensive experience, as a Privy Councillor and before that as a public servant, with this type of negotiation.
With regard to the business of the House, as the hon. member knows, Bill C-5 is companion to the bill to amend the Bretton-Woods Agreements Act. I would be delighted to move the Bretton-Woods Agreements Act to the committee and talk about international monetary policy, but people in Canada are waiting for this budget legislation to be enacted. The priority for the House is the budget. We have spent over a week on second reading and on the committee stage of the income tax bill, and two full days of debate on second reading with regard to the customs tariff. The time that hon. members choose to take on these budget bills is not only prejudicial to people like pork producers and others but is making it difficult to get on with the heavy agenda of the House.
I feel I would be trespassing on the rule of relevance if I started a long dissertation on the subject of Canada's trade policy. We have a specific bill on which we have had extensive discussion in the budget debate, so I think I should confine my remarks to the terms of this bill and not go into the broader questions that hon. members would like to have canvassed.


Mr. Whittaker:: Mr. Chairman, I fully endorse the remarks made by the hon. member for Edmonton West and the hon. member for York Simcoe. I find it a little odd that the minister should say now that we have to rush this bill through, especially since the last time we debated it was October 28. For almost three months he has had it in his back pocket.
January 27, 1977


Donald Stovel Macdonald: You filibustered it.


Mr. Friesen:: Not us.


George H. Whittaker: I think that if the speeches that we made, in which we pointed out to the government our point of view, were of such a nature that the minister was sensitive about them so that he now wants to call it a filibuster and does not want the other side of the story told, nor does he want to listen to the opposition and to what the people of Canada are saying, and therefore has not brought it back to the House for three months, and now that he has brought it in wants to rush it through, then it is just too bad. I did hope he would have something to say about the textile industry. Things have happened in that industry between the time of the debate on October 28 last and now, and he has not given us any explanation on that.
Nevertheless, I should like to ask the minister some questions about a subject that has been dear to me and about which I have asked question of several ministers of finance ever since I have been here. It concerns the customs tariff on small packages of pesticide. I received a letter from the minister on March 24, 1976, in which he said that his officials were looking at it and that consideration would be given to the matter in the budget. We are now debating the customs tariff changes proposed in the budget that was brought down on March 25 but nothing was done this time, as in the past, nor have I had any explanation as to why something is not being done about this.


Mr. Clarke:: I should like to ask the minister a specific question about tariff item 69605-1-scientific apparatus, etc.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is in clause 3.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that this is in clause 3, so I will wait.


Benno Friesen: As the Minister of Finance is aware, considerable attention was devoted by the Minister of National Revenue to a matter of customs and tariffs regarding groceries, because many Canadian shoppers are going down to Bellingham in the United States and as far south as Seattle to do their shopping. On these shopping trips anomalies in prices become very obvious to shoppers.
I should like to have an explanation of one of these anomalies. Can the minister give me the reason for this? I know many people who would appreciate it. For example, cookies that are baked in my riding neighbouring on the U.S. border sell for 30 cents to 40 cents a pound less in the United States than they do in the very locality where they are baked. Why do they cost less after having been exported to the U.S. than they do right in Canada where they are baked?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: With regard to the question of pesticides, that matter was canvassed in the community at the time in preparation for the budget, and I can say to the hon. gentleman that objections were raised by a number of Canadi-
Customs Tariff
an producers with regard to a change in this tariff item. It was on the basis of these objections that we concluded we should not make a change at this time.


Mr. Towers:: Mr. Chairman, I was wondering, with regard to the remarks of the minister as they related to the pork industry, whether I understood him correctly that he would be dealing with that matter in the proposed budget.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Sir. What I said was that as soon as the bill is passed I will be able to exercise the powers given under the bill to restore the level of protection which, under the bill, was to be reduced. This will be done as a result of representations from the pork producers. We do not have to wait for the budget, but by executive order I would be in a position to do that.
I cannot give an explanation for the marketing practices or the differences in cost on one or the other side of the border. I would point out, however, that item number 63500-1 does reduce the level of protection on biscuits on re-importation to Canada. I cannot explain the specific marketing situation of that commodity in the lower mainland and in northern Washington.


George H. Whittaker: The minister has used the word "producers". He said that some producers were against it. I wonder if he would clarify that. Does he mean producers of agricultural products who use the pesticide, or pesticide producers?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I mean the chemical manufacturers in Canada.


George H. Whittaker: May I make an observation on that? The people who want this tariff removed are the producers of food who use pesticides to produce food and who have very little, if any, tariff on their products. Take, for instance, apples. There is free trade on apples in Canada. If we are not going to protect our agricultural producers to any degree, then why should the manufacturers of products which they use get protection?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would remind the hon. member that there is a reference now before the tariff board on fresh fruits and vegetables. The board will be reporting some time during the course of this year. On all these matters it is a trade-off between the interests of different economic groups. In this case we are also looking at the jobs of people employed in chemical manufacturing.


Mr. Johnston:: On clause 1, which is general, I should like to inquire whether the minister and his department have given any consideration to the practice which seems to be prevalent in the United States and which might be described as internal dumping. I have an example which has been brought to my attention of a kind of motor that is used in powering large model aeroplanes, model railways, and other models of different kinds. This is a hobby, but it has become a very large one, and the total sum of money spent on these machines is very large. They are not manufactured in Canada and, because

January 27, 1977
Customs Tariff
there is a lack of any kind of protection, they cannot really be manufactured here. The distributors who have been importing them find themselves at a disadvantage because they must pay tariff on what is known as a fair trade price.
Having done that, and having brought in supplies, they find to their amazement that the stock they bring in simply becomes an opportunity for would-be purchasers to view the stock and make up their minds about it. They, in turn, can phone to the United States through a zenith number and order the same item for delivery by direct mail from a discount house at a considerably reduced price, a lower price than one on which the distributor would have paid duty. When the item comes to the customs office in Canada, a purchaser pays the duty on the lower price and makes a saving. He is not required to pay the provincial sales tax, and so makes a further saving.
One distributor was in a very difficult position. In order to improve his situation he developed a repair service for these machines, and in a sense that kept the loyalty of his customers, until he was charged duty on the parts he had to import to do the repair work, a service which could not otherwise be provided in Canada. What was developing as a Canadian industry was placed in jeopardy because there was no protection. If Canadian technicians can repair the machines, they can also manufacture them. That is one more example of moving into manufacturing small articles which require a great deal of technical skill, which we have here, but it is not possible because there is no tariff protection.
There are a couple of specific items which I would like to bring to the minister's attention. Is any consideration being given by the federal customs office to collecting provincial sales tax? A person who spoke to me said that otherwise the federal customs office would become a retailer in competition with retailers in the area. Are any moves being made to raise a barrier against internal discounting, where the manufacturer, the wholesaler, and the discounter are all one business, all owned by the same people who, when their own market is saturated, sell to their own discount house, and through it peddle into Canada directly at a great advantage?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, on that kind of transaction where an individual imports, there is a less extensive regime for control than there is when there are imports of commercial scale. The law is the same, but for practical reasons it is not possible to apply it with the full severity which would be applicable in the case of a larger shipment.
The question of valuation is basically one for the Minister of National Revenue. Perhaps the hon. member would like to write to me about that particular point, and I would be quite happy to seek the advice of my colleague.
I make just one remark with regard to provincial sales tax. It may indeed be that individuals are not paying provincial sales tax on those items, but that is not because they are exempt by law; it is because of the practical problem of collecting it. They are, of course, obliged to pay the sales tax.

So far as the Department of Finance is concerned, we do not have any arrangements under consideration at the moment for mutual collection of taxes in this way, although again I would have to inquire of my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, to see if in her department such a regime is being contemplated.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Chairman, I was not here when the original debate on this bill took place, so I did not have the pleasure of hearing what was said. However, I gather the reason for these changes is to lower the tariff on certain items. Could the minister tell me what progress, if any, is being made, or is any attempt being made to negotiate lower tariffs on Canadian fish products in the European Common Market? Can he give me a report on that? Is an attempt being made, and what are the prospects of success? As the hon. gentleman knows, there is a considerable tariff on Canadian fish products going to Europe, and this is where we have to put some of our effort in the next three or four years.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The best description I can give to the hon. gentleman, who was not here at the earlier stages of the debate, is that this is a continuation of the reduction of tariffs on many consumer items imported into Canada, principally food items, for the purpose of the over-all anti-inflation campaign.
With regard to the negotiations at the Geneva round, I indicated to the hon. member for Edmonton West a moment ago that this might not be an appropriate discussion because it does not relate to this particular bill. However, I would be glad to discuss this with the hon. gentleman in the House at some future time.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Chairman, there is another matter which is a continual nuisance and grievance to sportsmen in the country, and that has to do with the need to import cartridges, primers, and charges for sport shooting. For skeet shooting especially a lot of ammunition is needed. Much of this material is no longer made in Canada. CIL does not manufacture it any more, so these sportsmen have to go to the United States to get their primers, and I suppose also the charges and cartridges. The main question in their minds is, why is there duty on them in the first place since they are not manufactured in Canada? It certainly cannot be a protective tariff, and I suppose we have to assume-and perhaps the minister can correct me on this-that it is a revenue producing tariff and that that is its only justification. At any rate there are many sportsmen who are wondering why there is this tariff since these items are not manufactured in Canada.
My second related question is, if there has to be a tariff, why are there three or four different scales of tariffs on the items? Why is it that on one item it is about 7.5 per cent and on another one 15 per cent? I believe the tariff is as high as 32 per cent on some of these items. If there has to be a tariff on these cartridges and primers, why can there not be an across the board tariff so that all they have to do is pay a fiat rate on this sports equipment? Why do there have to be excessive 30 per cent or 40 per cent tariffs on some of the items, since they
January 27, 1977

are not manufactured in Canada in the first place? It seems to me these people are being penalized because there is not an industry in Canada which will produce these items.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I am reminded that the highest rate of tariff in Canada is about 20 per cent. There is a series of tariff items dealing with ammunition in a broader sense. It is not infrequent that with the shift in commercial competition, particular lines may be dropped. I suppose what the hon. member is really suggesting is that we should have separate tariff items for primers which, as he says-and I do not question him-are not manufactured in Canada, but of course there are other kinds of ammunition which are manufactured here, and it is to provide both actual protection and a protective opportunity to Canadian industry that the tariff item is there.


Benno Friesen: For those items which are not manufactured in Canada is it not possible to drop that tariff entirely?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I have not examined the individual items in detail, but it may well be that what the hon. gentleman is suggesting-that is, that those which are included in a broader item should be segregated out and, in effect, that a new item should be created-could be dealt with in the budget considerations which are now under way, and perhaps I could undertake to examine this particular question. If the hon. gentleman would let me have a more precise description of the various items and indicate those which, to his knowledge, are manufactured in Canada and those which are not, I would be delighted to examine them.


Benno Friesen: Will do.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Apparently the minister is disinclined to give us any explanation tonight concerning the pending or current negotiations in Geneva. I wonder if the minister could at least give us an undertaking that he will take up with the government House leader the possibility of having a reference of our trade negotiations as they now stand, with particular reference to what is happening in Geneva, to our Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs so that we may have a meaningful review of what the government is doing on behalf of Canada in Geneva.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would be quite happy to discuss that with the government House leader. It is going to be an important consideration during 1977 as the tariff negotiations get under way again in Geneva. It may interest hon. members to know that the new United States Secretary of the Treasury was the prime negotiator for the United States at the Kennedy Round; in that sense I would look forward to an early meeting, to learn from him his approach to the Geneva round of negotiations.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, would the minister confirm that he is the minister in the government who has over-all
Customs Tariff
responsibility for the GATT negotiations, and that Mr. Gray asks him for instructions as to what action to take in Geneva?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Gray, of course, was an official of my department. I would say that responsibility for the operation is shared by three departments: My own is the department responsible in particular fo the customs tariff; the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is responsible from the standpoint of Canada's over-all trade position and the position of Canadian industry; and the Department of External Affairs has responsibility for Canada's foreign relations. It is, therefore, not the decision of a single department; rather, the work of the government in this respect is co-ordinated primarily between those three departments. I would add that the Department of National Revenue is responsible for the practical application of the customs tariff which this parliament enacts; it also has other responsibilities. The anti-dumping tribunal reports through me to parliament, as does the Tariff Board. A number of different departments are affected in the government of Canada, and responsibility is shared among them in that way.


Mr. Kempling:: Mr. Chairman, are the items covered by Bill C-15 covered by the commodity coding system used by the Department of National Revenue?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I cannot say if the answer is in the affirmative. I will look into it in the next few minutes.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, while I realize that various departments of government are involved in providing total input with regard to the GATT negotiations, I wonder if the minister can confirm or otherwise if his department co-ordinates the activities of the other departments and has the responsibility of handling the instructions and communications going to our negotiators in Geneva.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, it is not unique. For the reasons I have indicated, the responsibilities of several departments are involved in this. I do not think one can say, in respect of a day's operations at Geneva, that it is specifically the final responsibility of any one department; however, as Minister of Finance, for the reasons I have indicated, I have responsibility for the customs tariff; and the primary purpose of the Geneva round of course is to negotiate lower levels of tariff.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, may I draw the attention of the minister to tariff items 8717-1 and 8728-1, as referred to in clause 1 and schedule I. The first item mentioned deals with onions; they are to be allowed in free under the British preferential tariff; there is a tariff of 1.5 cents per pound under the most favoured nation tariff, and a tariff of 1.5 cents per pound under the general tariff. The second item to which I referred deals with green onions, and the tariffs set out are exactly the same, under those three headings. Is the minister familiar with the tariff charged by American authorities for comparable items? In short, we know from the schedule what
2472

January 27, 1977
Customs Tariff
tariff is charged against American goods entering this country. Can the minister say what tariffs the United States authorities charge on comparable goods entering that country?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, we do not have the American tariff at hand. Of course we are now looking at the Canadian tariff, but I would be prepared to get that information for the hon. member.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I always like to be helpful, Mr. Chairman. I have the American tariff before me; it happens to be 1.75 cents per pound. Consequently I understand that our bags of onions entering the United States face a tariff of 87.5 cents, whereas, in accordance with the tariff we are now considering, the total tariff we shall charge with respect to American produce entering this country will be 75 cents per bag. Therefore there is a differential of 12.5 cents weighted against the Canadian producer of onions. I wonder if the minister would indicate why there is this discrepancy?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I cannot really give the hon. gentleman an explanation of why the rates would not match. I notice that we have made some sales in the American market in recent years although, for obvious reasons, the nature of our climate and the fact that our growing season is short, the volume of produce from Canada going to the United States market is very much smaller then that coming in the other direction.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, has the minister discussed with or had overtures from the onion producers of Canada, more particularly the onion producers of Ontario, who have indicated to me that they would like to see parity between American and Canadian tariffs since this would enable them to be more competitive in the U.S. market.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, this is one of the items in the fruit and vegetable reference which is now before the Tariff Board. With regard to specific changes proposed, the Canadian Horticultural Council did not oppose the original reduction after the February 19, 1973, budget, although the council did oppose the reduction proposed in the November 18, 1974, budget, and offered to provide additional information on the subject. No further representations have been forthcoming since that offer.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, this is a most important matter to the 300 Ontario onion growers who this year alone will produce nearly three million bags of onions. Could the minister indicate whether those tariff items which we are now considering could be altered, if a fair case were to be made for the alteration, despite their passage in their present form, say this evening? I understand that our producers would like something to happen. They want to see the Americans lower their duty to the Canadian level; or they want us to raise our tariff to the American tariff level; or, third, they are in favour of both tariffs being abolished entirely. In short, it is apparent that our producers are confident that they can compete and, if the tariff barrier could be removed, they could stand American

competition and even tap the American market and, hopefully, expand those trade figures to which reference has already been made.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, several stages will have to be gone through. Of course the purpose of the fruit and vegetable reference is to determine better the impact on the Canadian market of the tariffs in question; this would affect not only consumers but, of course, Canadian producers. Second, on the basis of the results of the Tariff Board examination, this could well be a matter for negotiation in the Kennedy Round. However, I would say that the question of agriculture has not yet been broached in the Kennedy Round negotiations. One could almost say it has been so important and critical between the major trading partners that it has not been approached, but it will obviously have to be, to bring that negotiation to a finish.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask the minister a question with regard to a similar problem. It relates to flax, a crop grown in a relatively small area of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and the Dakotas. There is a 50 cent duty on flax moving into the United States. I understand there is no duty on flax coming into Canada from the United States. This is a small crop in terms of volume, a few million bushels. The price in the two countries is generally the same, but conditions such as shipping orders and so on make a difference. I believe the flax producers have asked that the 50 cents a bushel tariff on Canadian flax going to the United States be removed or at least equalized. If possible, it would be preferable to remove it. Perhaps the minister can make some comment on this.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, that would be a subject for negotiation when the agricultural items come up before the Geneva round. If I could just refer to the question asked by the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth, I take it the question refers to the Statistics Canada commodity codes in this respect. The items here would be covered by the commodity codes. These items are rather narrower in definition generally speaking than the broader commodity codes, but the commodity codes obviously would cover these.


William James Kempling: Mr. Chairman, I do not know them as Statistics Canada commodity codes, only National Revenue because National Revenue produces a catalogue. It is a little more detailed than Statistics Canada commodity codes.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister can inform us if the Horticultural Association made any representation regarding imports from Taiwan and Korea on such items as mushrooms, wax beans, and green beans. The price level at which these products are coming into Canada is destroying the agricultural economy. Certainly on the west coast it is really hurting it. Will the minister inform us whether there has been any representation by the Horticultural Association on that tariff item?

My second question is with regard to an arrangement between Canada and the United States on the matter of potatoes. The minister can correct me if I am wrong. Under the GATT agreement there is a kind of reciprocating tariff arrangement between Canada and the United States on potatoes. The quota for Canadian shipments into the United States is really quite low. The American quota for shipping into Canada is really quite high. Regardless of the percentage rate of the tariff, it is really a restrictive tariff for Canadian potatoes to be shipped into the United States. However, the Americans can ship high volumes from Idaho and Washington. With their mass production and corporate farming they can inundate the Canadian market and are doing so, mostly with their cull potatoes. They can sell high grade potatoes on the market in the United States, take their culls and literally dump them in Canada, ruining the Canadian potato industry in British Columbia. Can the minister give some answers on that?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is quite right. The Canadian market is more open than the American one in the sense that we have a much less restrictive quota. Again, this is something which is under consideration, the fresh fruit and vegetable reference. On the question of representations with regard to mushrooms, this has been a matter of substantial representation. 1 would have to check the record to see if the Canadian Horticultural Association itself actually made the representation. I certainly know that others have. I can also check the record with regard to wax beans.


Benno Friesen: Are there definite plans for changing the agreement with the United States on the matter of export and import potatoes so that the Canadian potato industry will have a little more protection from the American high volume?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Not until we have the assessment of the Tariff Board. Of course it would be appropriate to do it within the context of the Geneva round.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, if I could go back to my questioning with regard to onions, will the minister indicate to us exactly what we can do here tonight? As I understand it, the onion producers are saying that there are three alternatives-let us have both nations go down to zero, let us have the Americans reduce their tariff to our level or, alternatively, increase our tariff one and one half cents to the American level. Can we tonight actually amend the tariff to go to the American level, or is this subject to the GATT negotiations?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, that is a bound tariff under the GATT.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Chairman, there are two more items about which I would like to ask the minister. One is the matter of fresh lettuce. There is a tariff arrangement between Canada and the United States on this matter. However, all too often the tariff is imposed when it is almost too late to save the Canadian market. The low tariff on the American or Mexican
Customs Tariff
product coming into Canada stays on just long enough until the Canadian product is coming on the market. By that time it is too late to save the Canadian market. The protection does not come on in time. Since there are different marketing conditions and weather conditions, for example, between the west coast industry and Ontario, would it be possible to have the regional tariffs come in at different times of the year and let the local boards adjust those tariffs so that they would be sensitive to the marketing conditions of their areas and thereby protect the farmers in particular localities?
My second question relates to frozen vegetables. Food processors on the west coast in particular have a high inventory of frozen vegetables. It will be almost impossible to market them by the time the next crop comes on stream because of the competition from the United States. Is something going to be done with regard to tariffs on processed vegetables, especially in the frozen state, in order to protect the jobs of Canadians, not only in the farming industry but in the food processing industry?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, there is a regional variation under the tariff arrangements with regard to fresh fruits and vegetables. For example, the hon. member for York-Simcoe was referring to onions under item 8717-1. Lettuce is not mentioned in this bill, but there are variations between the maritimes, eastern Ontario and Quebec, and the Lakehead and West. So there is a wide scope for regional variation. The hon. member will note that a number of items refer to frozen vegetables of various kinds and there is some reduction in the tariff. As I said earlier on, it has been in effect on a temporary basis for a number of years.


Benno Friesen: Could lettuce be included in that regional variation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Chairman, could the minister give us an estimate of the impact of these tariff changes, particularly with respect to the British preferential tariff and the most favoured nation tariff, on the general system of preferences, since the two are related? I am thinking particularly of some of the items I see listed on page 13-typewriters, typewriter parts, spectacles and eye-glasses, carpet sweepers, electric vacuum cleaners and attachments, and so on. The list includes power lawn mowers, electric irons, electric lamps, electric lamp fixtures and so on. In other words, there is a range of manufactured items not only in the electrical manufacturing field but in other secondary industry. I ask this question in light of the fact that the general system of preferences grants to the developing countries-that is, the non-Commonwealth countries-the British preference or the most favoured nation tariff less one-third. Thus, if we are changing these tariffs we are also changing the level of the general system of preferences.
It is very difficult to follow from the tables provided here what change is granted under, say, the British preference and

January 27, 1977
Customs Tariff
therefore, by extension, what is granted to the developing countries. I ask this question particularly in the light of the shrinking employment picture in some of our industries, especially the electrical manufacturing industry.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure I fully grasped the hon. gentleman's question but I can say that the general system of preferences is unaffected by the bill before us. The preferences as given under the general system are either one-third off the most favoured nation rate or the British preferential rate, whichever is the lower. Without these particular reductions the MFN or BP rate would apply, so the general system of preferences will, speaking generally, be more favourable to developing countries which are entitled to it than the BP rate on the same commodity.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Would the minister comment upon the effect of clause 5(3) on section 1 of the act? I ask this because he may recall that the effect of section 1 is that those changes in the tariff in the items outlined in subsection (1) will continue until June 30, 1977, that is to say, they will expire in approximately five months. The rates then go back to those which prevailed on February 20, 1973, and as of July 1, unless something is done in the next budget, the rates will revert to those of February 20, 1973. Perhaps the minister's director of tariffs can tell us in reference to all these items which appear in schedules I, II and III whether the rates were higher or lower, or is there an evening off?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am advised that it only applied to Schedule I and that the rates were higher.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Therefore as of July 1, 1977, the effective rates will be higher?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Unless further action is taken in the meantime, it will be higher.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, returning to item 8717-1, it appears that we cannot tonight amend the bill and that if this is to be changed it will have to be changed in the current negotiations in Switzerland. Could the minister indicate what ongoing discussions take place with respect to this type of item, fruits and vegetables generally, to ensure that there is a proper understanding between our negotiators and those who are actually in the business of producing these items in Canada, as negotiations continue in Geneva?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Apart from the representations from organizations such as the Canadian Horticultural Council, to which I have referred, there is of course the ongoing work of the Canadian Tariffs and Trade Committee which has been engaged in cross-country contact with regard to the reduction of items in the Geneva negotiations.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Would the minister give the House an undertaking that he would inquire of those two bodies as to the current feeling with respect to the tariff on onions as I understand there is quite a serious problem, especially for Ontario onion growers, at the present time? I feel that what-
(Mr. O'Connell.]
ever benefit their thinking can bring should be available to our negotiators in Geneva.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Perhaps I can move on to another item under clause 1-number 9800-1, bananas. Can the minister tell us where the bulk of our bananas come from? I notice there is a free tariff with regard to British preferential countries and most favoured nations, but the general tariff is a dollar per hundred pounds.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The bulk of the bananas we import comes from MFN countries, in particular, Costa Rica, Equador and the Honduras.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, there is a further item I should like to question. It is 92942-4-caffein and its salts. This is free under the British preferential tariff, 10 per cent under the most favoured nation and 25 per cent under the general tariff. Would the minister indicate where the imports of caffein and its salts come from? The item is on page 18, 92942-4.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The bulk of the imports come from the European Economic Community. The source is not segregated as countries.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On clause 3-Schedule A further amended.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In connection with this clause, Mr. Chairman, there has been a great deal of correspondence with the minister. I know that many of my colleagues like the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre- anyone indeed, who represents a riding in a city in which there is a university-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -has received extensive correspondence regarding item 69605-1. It arises out of the bulletin which was issued by the Department of National Revenue with regard to the very narrow interpretation being used. I do not know whether, as a result of representations, the bulletin has been suspended. If the minister looks at the item on page 22, in the middle of the item there is reference to "preparations", and then follows the change "including containers in which imported, for use directly in research". The word "teaching" has been dropped.
I have before me a letter from a professor of surgery in the Department of Surgery of the University of Alberta. I have other letters from the Department of Chemistry of the University of Alberta, from Calgary and many other places. The first letter to which I referred has this to say in part:
Many departments in this University maintain stores of scientific supplies and this is necessary in view of the lengthy delays often encountered in obtaining items ordered from the scientific supply houses. While much of these stocked
January 27, 1977

supplies go towards research work, some are used in teaching. Since, in fact, it is very difficult to separate out the teaching and research functions of a University it will not be possible to prepare the required statements for the tariff exemption.
For example, the Health Sciences Animal Centre in my Faculty uses some $60,000/annum worth of specialized animal feeds. While the overwhelming majority of the animals are used in research, some are used in teaching. With some hundred scientific investigators using the facilities of the Centre for an even larger number of projects, honest production of the descriptions of the research and use of the prepared feed will just not be possible. The result will be about a 30 per cent rise in animal feed costs or $20,000/year raising animal charges to users about 20 per cent.
I have another letter from the Department of Chemistry of the University of Alberta which states that this change will cost them $64,000 a year more. The same figures are given by Calgary and Manitoba.
I also have a letter written by the minister which says this, in part:
I appreciate that this amendment is causing problems for universities, hospitals and their suppliers of preparations. Officials in my Department are discussing this matter with officials in the Department of National Revenue who are responsible for the administration of this provision.
A meeting was also held recently between officials in my Department, the Department of National Revenue and representatives of the universities. It was agreed that the administration of the new provision would be re-examined. My officials will report back to me shortly at which time I will be in a better position to decide whether a further amendment to the item will be necessary.
I await the answer, Mr. Chairman.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, to complete the public record on this, the item in question was affected by a Tariff Board decision rendered in July, 1976, and the new provision has been much more restrictive than was intended by the government. I would therefore be proposing to take action to give it the less restrictive meaning that was originally intended and for this purpose to seek a remission order pursuant to section 17 of the Financial Administration Act.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I ask specifically how the minister intends to proceed? The wording is there and the word "teaching" no longer applies. I assume the effect of the Tariff Board decision was that the exemption be applied only to those materials that go into research. It is true that the minister can take, shall we say, compensating action, but it must be done in two ways. First of all, the item has to be amended, I think, in order, shall we say, to eliminate the effect of the Tariff Board decision; otherwise the Department of National Revenue will have to carry on. Secondly, for this year, or whenever the amendment might come in, the minister is going to take the remission procedure.
If he follows the remission route it is going to be a real headache for everyone concerned. The paperwork involved is out of this world. Universities and hospitals complain that to keep track of these preparations and foods, and so on, for animals either used in research or in teaching, it will cost so much in paperwork alone plus, of course, the duty that will have to be paid. If they are to go along the remission route they will be required to apply to the Department of National Revenue for reimbursement of the amount they have had to pay.
Customs Tariff
It may be that the Department of National Revenue has suspended collection, but I do not know what route can be used by those people who, unfortunately, have to be put through this bureaucratic grist mill as a result of the Tariff Board interpretation.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, as I have said, this can be achieved by remission at this point. To complete discussions for our next budget in several months' time, we hope to propose wording which will be mutually satisfactory to all concerned and which would provide the ongoing assurance that a less restrictive interpretation will be given. Therefore I propose to recommend to the Governor in Council that remissions be available in the interim until there is some agreement on the most effective wording to attain the objective that we set out to attain.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In other words, for the time being we will have to wear the hair shirt?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: For the time being you will have to wear the hair shirt, recovering some of the hair afterwards.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 4-Schedule C amended.
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, because of the peculiar wording of Schedule IV, referred to in clause 4, I was wondering whether we could have some explanation from the minister. Item 99206-1 reads:
Goods manufactured or produced wholly or in part by prison labour, unless in any particular case or class of cases exempted from the provisions of this item by a regulation of the Governor in Council.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, this item now prohibits the importation of all goods produced by prison labour unless exempted by the Governor in Council for further manufacture in Canada. The item is being amended to allow the Governor in Council to exempt goods from prohibition in other circumstances and we are attempting to simplify the wording at the same time.
Two cases where it might be considered desirable to have prohibition are when they are being imported for public exhibition, or when Canadians return from visits to other countries having purchased goods of this kind without knowledge of the prohibition or the fact that the goods have been made by prisoners.
I should explain that the item was introduced in the late nineteenth century, and it appears that the item was designed at the time to protect Canadian manufacturers from imports of goods produced by cheap prison labour. It was amended in 1953 to allow the Governor in Council to import exempt goods when they were required for further manufacture. However, no exemption of this kind has in fact ever been made.
That is the basic background. Some people may be inadvertently importing into Canada goods of this kind-inadvertently in the sense of not knowing they were produced by prison labour, or for public exhibition-and this gives the Governor

Customs Tariff
in Council the opportunity to make those exceptions from the general prohibition.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The minister says "for public exhibition". I just do not follow what are the circumstances under which we would want to have goods coming in which have been produced by prison labour. What type of exhibition is the minister referring to?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Handicrafts, paintings, works of art of that kind which may have been produced by prison labour in other countries and originally imported into Canada. It may be a rather esoteric interest on someone's part, but one cannot tell; there may be an artistic genius currently reposing in custody.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: From the practical standpoint, Mr. Chairman, would the minister indicate to what extent these goods are inadvertently, as the minister says, imported by these unsuspecting souls?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: There have been cases, I am advised, but I am sorry, the actual figures are not available.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 5-Commencement.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I might just indicate that hon. members will have noticed that when introduced at the first reading stage, the bill had a number of blank statements in it, both in clause 5 (2) and Schedule I. I would like to suggest that it might be appropriate that they be filled in for this purpose. My understanding is that the suggestion from the Chair is that they could be treated as corrections of a typographical error, but perhaps you could advise me on that, Mr. Chairman.


Gérald Laniel: I do not see any difficulty if the committee agrees, otherwise we would have to do it by amendment. What date is the hon. minister suggesting? Is it the date of first reading?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: October 14, 1976.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Under the circumstances, Mr. Chairman, we might agree to this as long as it does not serve as a precedent. It could have been the 14th day of October, 19, and then blank. Then, of course, we could insert years, and that could hardly be considered a minor correction. I can readily understand why October 14 is included, but I would not like this procedure to be used as a precedent, particularly if the gap were to come expressed as a month or year.


Gérald Laniel: Does the committee authorize the Chair to make this type of correction to Clause 5(2), including the date "14th"?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gérald Laniel: Shall Clause 5 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Gérald Laniel: Does the committee agree that we make the same correction to Schedule I at page 8?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On Schedule I.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, as the minister has indicated, the items I specifically referred to, 8717-1 and 8728-1, are in fact unamendable in that they are subject to an international agreement. I was wondering whether the minister would indicate if there are any items in this schedule that are amendable, or are they all structured in that way and only changeable as a result of negotiation in Geneva?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Indeed, you could go back through these particular items and find they are bound items back to February 14, 1973. The hon. gentleman's question was with regard to a basic amendment that was in force. The basic tariff provision that was in force on that particular day was a bound tariff under GATT. This particular bill substantially reduces from that bound level to a lower level. Of course, we could by amendment this evening increase them. We could, with appropriate amendments to the ways and means resolution, increase the tariff protection again up to the February 14, 1973, level.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am somewhat puzzled by the minister's answer to my colleague, the hon. member for York-Simcoe. Surely it is open to an hon. member to amend a taxing statute providing he reduces the amount of the tax. We have done that on a number of occasions. It seems to me that also, subject to I suppose what might be an agreement, there could be other amendments. The government did not seem to be bothered a few years ago during the Kennedy Round agreements having regard to negotiated reductions in tariffs on industrial chemicals. The former minister, Mr. Benson, telescoped three or four years into one in the second year of the phased reductions on industrial chemicals as a step to combat inflation, making things cheaper on the domestic market. The phasing was dropped very quickly for those years.
The government took that action and it was subject to an agreement that it would be for five years. How does the government then suggest it has the power to change unilaterally the agreement, while a member cannot? If that is the case and it is proper for the government, then surely it would be open to a member here to make a proposal which, if the House agrees, would provide for a unilateral change. I would like to hear an explanation. I may be wrong in my logic, but if the government has the power to amend unaliterally an international agreement like that, surely this House, on the proposal of an hon. member to do the same thing, would have the same sort of power to do precisely the same thing.
January 27, 1977


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am not sure that we are addressing ourselves to the same thing. The hon. gentleman has suggested as one alternative increasing the Canadian tariff on onions. It was in that particular circumstance that I indicated this is one of the rates that had been brought down in February, 1973, which we could move back up again by executive order.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Chairman, this is one matter I have not been able to check. I have not looked through the list thoroughly, but I do not seem to find any items relating for example to wheelchairs or any other equipment for paraplegics in any of the schedules. Could the minister give us some indication as to whether these are dutiable items and, if they are, whether it would be the fair, equitable and honourable thing to do if we removed these items?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am advised, Mr. Chairman, that quite a few of the items sui generis such as wheelchairs referred to by the hon. gentleman are now duty free. Some of them bear a tariff up to a maximum of 10 per cent, so there are some of these devices still in that category. The reason, of course, is that there are some Canadian manufacturers in this area, and it will represent in a particular case a judgment as to whether that protection should be taken off in the interests of those with an affliction.


Gérald Laniel: Shall Schedule I carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Schedule I agreed to.
On Schedule II.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw the attention of the committee to item no. 40964-1 which appears at the bottom of page 19 in Schedule II, electric or radio apparatus designed to identify livestock and record their consumption of feed on an individual basis and parts thereof. About a year ago some constituents of mine engaged in livestock operations had occasion to raise their concern with me about the fact that equipment of that particular kind was dutiable. They pointed out that this was a new kind of equipment that involved some very important innovations in technology. It was obviously the kind of equipment that had great potential value for the livestock industry and was a kind of equipment not manufactured in Canada. They therefore made representations to me, and through me to the minister, with respect to the duty involved. On their behalf this evening I should like to take this opportunity to express appreciation to the minister for the consideration he has shown in eliminating the duty that would otherwise have been payable on these items.
Schedule II agreed to.
Schedules III and IV agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Excise Tax Act
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now, by leave.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


EXCISE TAX ACT
Donald Stovel Macdonald: that Bill C-21, to amend the Excise Tax Act, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in introducing this bill I would remind the hon. members that my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie), tabled a document entitled "An Energy Strategy for Canada-Policies for Self-reliance" in April of this year. In this document the government stated its objective of energy self-reliance, indicated a series of specific energy targets, and enumerated nine policy elements and priorities. These priorities included appropriate energy pricing, increased exploration and development, increased research and development and energy conservation. One of our goals is to reduce the average rate of growth of energy use in Canada over the next ten years. Energy conservation initiatives, including both tax incentives and tax penalties, form an important part of the government's policy of energy self-reliance.
This bill provides for the removal of federal sales tax from a number of items which contribute to the conservation of energy and to the development of new sources of energy. Included in this list are such items as solar furnaces and heating panels, heat pumps and wind-powered generating equipment. The current exemption for thermal insulation materials for buildings is extended to include thermal insulation materials designed for use in the insulation of pipes and ducts in buildings and mechanical systems.
The purpose of the removal of federal sales tax from the items referred to above is to promote the conservation of energy by encouraging the use of higher efficiency heating equipment, increased use of thermal insulation to reduce heat loss, and the development and application of new equipment designed to derive energy from other non-traditional sources. Provision is also made for the Governor in Council to prescribe, by regulation, additional equipment, articles or materials to be energy conservation equipment exempt from federal sales tax. This provision will facilitate prompt action to provide relief from tax when new items which can contribute to Canada's over-all energy conservation program become available on the Canadian market.
The bill also contains measures to deter wasteful energy consumption by increasing the special excise taxes on high

January 27, 1977
Excise Tax Act
energy-consuming vehicle and by imposing a new special excise tax on automotive air conditioners. The weight threshold above which the tax takes effect is reduced to 4,425 pounds for automobiles and to 5,000 pounds for station wagons and vans. In addition, the rates of tax applicable to vehicles which exceed their respective weight limits are increased to $30 for the first 100 pounds, $40 for the second 100 pounds, $50 for the third 100 pounds, and $60 for each additional 100 pounds in excess of the weight limit. The purpose of the tax is not to raise revenue but rather to encourage Canadians to demand, and the auto industry to produce, lighter, more energy-efficient cars.
In this regard, the ways and means motion tabled at the time of the May 25, 1976, budget provided for progressive reductions in the weight threshold with the result that, under a mature system, taxes amounting to as much as $1,000 would be imposed on the largest cars weighing approximately 5,300 pounds. Since the budget I have met with representatives of the auto industry and officials of my department have held extensive discussions with these representatives. Indeed, some discussions have been going on as a result with my colleagues, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and their officials with respect to this energy incentives tax. As a result of these discussions the government has been persuaded that an alternative form of tax based on vehicle fuel consumption rather than weight should be explored further by the industry and those within the government with responsibility for energy conservation.
To provide sufficient time for an in-depth study of this alternative, it was decided that the impact of the proposed tax changes should be reduced. For this reason the bill provides for a reduction of 75 pounds in the automobile weight limit and a reduction of 100 pounds in the weight limit for station wagons and vans, rather than the reductions of 250 and 350 pounds respectively proposed in the May 25 budget speech. The reductions in the weight limits and the increases in rate of tax applicable to vehicles in excess of the weight limits are effective as of September 1, 1976.
The further reductions in the weight threshold proposed in the May budget to come into effect in 1977 through 1979 will not be implemented at this time. I lay some stress on the words "at this time" because the one-year adaptation of the new rule was made specifically on the understanding that efforts would be made to move to the alternative means of gauging and preserving further energy consumption. I have left myself room for action in the current year, if there is no progress in this regard, to bring back measures like those originally proposed in the budget speech or, alternatively, one which would seem to be most effective to achieve the same end.
While the changes initially proposed will not be proceeded with in the current year it has really been a question of time to enable those concerned with this question to put into place proposals with respect to an alternative method of gauging energy conservation. The significant deterrent to the purchase and hence the production of energy-inefficient automobiles

which we have in mind will be implemented following completion of the joint government/industry study of a more effective method of implementing the policy. These will be complementary to the fleet-weighted mileage requirements announced earlier this year by my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Mr. Speaker, the amendment pertaining to the special $100 dollar excise tax on air conditioners for cars, station-wagons, vans and light trucks is another measure to promote energy conservation. Automobile air conditioners have a marked effect on gas consumption, either directly, by using the car engine as power source or, indirectly, by adding weight to the vehicle. Studies show that in the case of heavy cars made in Canada and equipped with air conditioners, there is an average annual increase of 4 to 6 per cent of gas consumption as compared to that of similar vehicles without conditioners. In the case of smaller vehicles, gas consumption can go up by as much as 20 per cent if the car is equipped with an air conditioner.
On a technical point of view, the bill provides for a tax at the wholesale level so that taxpayers holding wholesale licences can buy merchandise subject to the excise tax without having to pay that tax when purchasing the goods. They are then required to pay the tax when they sell the goods, just as wholesalers holding licences must nowadays pay the sales tax on goods subject to the federal sales tax. This measure would cut down the administrative costs of taxpayers who previously had to fill out reimbursement claims since they are buying goods subject to an excise tax and which can be sold tax free. [English]
Mr. Speaker, after these brief words of introduction let me say in conclusion that the bill provides for important new measures to supplement those already in place to encourage greater conservation of energy by Canadians by penalizing wasteful or less essential uses of our energy resources, and by encouraging the development and the use of energy sources other than the scarce fossil fuels. On this basis I would commend it to hon. members.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, there is very little time left to me before the adjournment tonight, and I know that my colleagues tomorrow will talk on various subjects as they arise. First of all, however, I should like to say that I trust that some of them will take up the matter of the implementation that is imposed on so-called small business. Years and years ago, eons ago as a matter of fact, the $3,000 limit on any manufacturing establishment was imposed which exempted any business producing less than $3,000 worth of goods in any one year from collecting, charging and remitting sales tax. Inflation has taken care of that limit, but it has not been changed.
It seems to me that an equitable value at this time would be between $10,000 and $15,000. One can hardly sneeze without
January 27, 1977

being charged $10,000.1 know the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) will bring up something else in the same range, rehabilitation shops, handicraft shops, and so forth, very small businesses. I am sure that the Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Marchand) would second my proposal here, but 1 will let my colleagues develop this further.
There is one particular point that I want to raise which arises in the latter part of the bill under the energy conservation equipment, where there is a change. A provision in an earlier budget, which is in section 17 of Part 11 of schedule III, refers to thermal insulation materials. At that time it was designed exclusively for the insulation of buildings. This time the minister has extended it to include pipes and ducts used in buildings, in mechanical systems, etc. The minister and I have exchanged correspondence, and I have also exchanged correspondence with the Minister of National Revenue (Miss Begin) on the interpretation of this wording. I have letters dated up to mid 1976, prior to the budget, in which the minister indicated that the recommendations I made with regard to certain products would be taken into account. Nevertheless, not a word was changed; the same fundamental error was continued.
There are some types of insulating thermal materials which have to be put together, they cannot stand in a free form, and somebody says there is another design. They become a panel, and since they stand up between the joists, or if they are used on a roof, they provide structural strength, and they are said not to be designed exclusively for insulation. I say, poppycock! There is no way, for instance, you can take wheat straw, which is subject to heat and steam pressure, and press it together into a board two inches thick so that it will be rigid, but all it provides is insulation. There has been turning and twisting of words, an abuse of the English language so that all possible artificial meanings have been attributed to the wording. This material was designed exclusively for insulation.


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


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I have one minute more, Mr. Speaker, because I will not be here tomorrow?
I ask the minister whether he would look at this again. It has been a bugbear. Unfortunately these interpretations defeat the purpose of the budget to provide an incentive for cheaper building materials.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I rise to protest a cruel and inhumane lack of action by the government in a matter that seriously affects the province of Newfoundland. On December 10, 48 days ago, I asked a question about the fish docks available for fishing operations on the south coast of Newfoundland in the district of Burin-Burgeo for the owners of those plants who were having great difficulties because of their inability to catch fish under last year's quota system with their side trawlers.
I asked the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc) a question on that and whether he was going to develop a plan to compensate them for their loss, because the lack of fish is not their fault but the fault of the government of Canada which, for years, was negligent in protecting that resource. He gave an unsatisfactory answer. He said he had no special assistance program. It appears he is going to do nothing. But 48 days later, on Monday, January 31, the fish plant at Gaultois in Burin-Burgeo, the district of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson), will close with a loss of jobs for 220 men because the government has failed to take any action in the last 48 days to amend the new fishery management plan of the Minister of Fisheries, announced in December, so that they can catch fish with their side trawlers and keep the plant in operation, or give it special financial assistance for the same purpose.
The plant at Gaultois lost over $400,000 in the last quarter of 1976. The Minister of Fisheries was informed that that plant would not be able to operate at the end of the month if no special assistance program was brought about. He was informed of that in a wire on January 13, and in a wire dated December 24 the owner of the fish plant at Ramea, Mrs. Margaret Penney, wired the Minister of Fisheries about the conditions in the plant at Ramea and about its losses in the fall of 1976 because of the lack of quotas and the difficulty with side trawlers. She advised that it was likely she would have to close and that another 375 jobs would be gone in Ramea if no steps were taken by the Government of Canada. At the plant in Gaultois only 55,000 pounds of fillets were processed in December, and in the other two months, October and November, only 150,000 pounds were processed, when the normal production is 400,000. They are losing a fortune because they cannot catch fish. They cannot absorb these losses, yet in the fishery management plan the minister announced in December no specific provisions were made for side trawlers or for these plants on the south coast.
What is the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the member of parliament for that area, doing about that? He was in Newfoundland over the Christmas period for two weeks, yet no special federal help has come. These plants are all in his constituency. He did not even have a meeting on the subject. We know that he has been gone for the last two weeks on official business in South America, and he got back only
2480

Adjournment Debate
yesterday, but what has the Minister of Fisheries been doing in his absence? Is the fishing industry on the south coast of Newfoundland going to be allowed to collapse because the Minister of Fisheries is, for some reason, unable to amend his fishery management plan or to provide some additional assistance for side trawlers in Newfoundland?
There is a fish plant at Ramea with side trawlers, a plant at Gaultois with side trawlers, at Harbour Breton with side trawlers, and at Fortune half the trawlers are side trawlers. All of them are having these difficulties, and in Nova Scotia these conditions prevail in Louisbourg and Petit de Grat. What is going to happen?
There are four days to go before the plant at Gaultois closes, which the minister was informed on January 13 would happen. When is he going to come up with the program he promised last year for special assistance, or when is the fishery management plan going to be changed? What is the good of the 200 mile zone if it is administered so timidly, if we are going to tiptoe through the tulips and not see that our own fish plants are protected or that our own trawlers and fishermen can catch fish? What is the good of this so-called 200 mile zone? Enough of this timidity.
There are hundreds of fishermen and fish plant workers in Newfoundland in danger of being added to the already gigantic unemployment rolls in Newfoundland if the Minister of Fisheries does not act before Monday, and if the Secretary of State for External Affairs does not give him a nudge to get him acting.
Two of the Lake side trawlers went up to Labrador with assistance from the federal government last fall to try to fish on the strange grounds off Labrador. They had a disastrous trip. In ten days they caught 20,000 pounds of fish. They lost nearly all their gear fishing in those unfamiliar grounds and sustained a heavy financial loss. The wages of the crew members had to be guaranteed. Although they got a $48,000 grant from the federal government, they still lost heavily. They cannot fish in those strange grounds. They have to be permitted to fish off the south coast, off the coast of Nova Scotia and in the Gulf if those plants are going to operate this summer. What is the Minister of Fisheries doing? What is the Secretary of State for External Affairs doing? He should be worrying about the people in his own constituency just as much as he is worrying about the people of South America.
I hope the minister, who is not here tonight, will respond. I hope his parliamentary secretary will give us some indication that the fish plants on the south coast of Newfoundland will receive some special assistance to keep their side trawlers operating and their plants operating. There are at least 1,000 or 1,500 jobs involved in that area, and we cannot afford to have that unemployment added to an already fantastic unemployment rate.


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, a number of contingency plans were devised in 1976 to assist fishermen and plant operators in the event that quota restrictions or other

factors necessitated assistance over and above that available from the Temporary Assistance Program which, effective April 1, 1976, provided two cents a pound deficiency payments to trawlers and grants of six cents a pound on fillets to processors.
Data on landings, production, costs and earnings supplies by Fishing enterprises and the processing industry in connection with the assistance program have been under continuous review during the year. At the time the need for special assistance to side trawlers operating out of Newfoundland south coast plants was being evaluated the data showed that production at the Newfoundland south coast plants handling catches from side trawlers was 9 per cent higher in 1976 than in the same January to October period in 1975. When the April level of temporary assistance was established, the average landing per trip for Newfoundland side trawlers was 126,000 pounds. This catch rate was taken as an index against which succeeding months were compared, and was used to determine the need for any change in the level of assistance. The average landings varied from a high of 180,000 pounds per trip in August to 72,000 pounds per trip in October and November, with an over-all average of 125,000 pounds per trip.
Based on data compiled between April 1 and the end of October, it was concluded that total assistance provided under the Temporary Assistance program would be sufficient to offset any cash shortfalls incurred during the last three months of 1976, when the volume of landings is normally low. On the basis of evaluation of available information on landings and production for plants and side trawlers, it was concluded that additional special assistance was not justified.
We now know that during the latter part of 1976 plants remained open and fishermen continued to fish. While both production and landings were down during this period, over-all cost and earnings data for Newfoundland south coast side trawler plants show that during the period April to November inclusive, the temporary assistance program met the cash shortfalls in the industry. I might also add that there was a special financial incentive plan for vessels forced to fish outside their normal areas due to quota restrictions, and several of the Newfoundland side trawlers participated in this program.
I should like to inform you that the level of payments under the temporary assistance program, which were in effect in late 1976, are to be maintained during the first months of 1977. There is also a financial incentives plan to encourage fishing in northern non-traditional areas where Canada has substantial quotas. Conditions in the industry as a whole are being kept under continuous review, and appropriate action will be taken in response to changing circumstances in the fishing and processing sectors of the industry.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION-OBJECTION TO DOCUMENTARY ON FRENCH CULTURE IN VILLAGE OF PAIN COURT
John Robert Holmes: Mr. Speaker, on November 4 last I raised an extremely important matter in the
January 27, 1977

House with the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts). The issue was related to a documentary which appeared on CBET channel 9 on Monday, October 25, 1976, between the hours of 7 and 7.30 p.m. The documentary purported to show the French culture of the village of Pain Court. As I indicated at the time, a significant portion of the documentary dealt with an hotel, showing a stripper in the nude. When I asked the minister to investigate the matter and make an apology to the residents of the village and the township, to my astonishment the minister responded with a pompous and cavalier attitude.
The issue is not one of freedom of the press or a suggestion of editorial interference. However, when a documentary is a complete misrepresentation of the facts and reflects in a derogatory manner on the residents of a village and a township, I would have anticipated that the minister would have been more sensitive to the issue and responded in a more responsible manner.
The history of the village is contained in its name, and if the minister had reflected for a moment on that one fact the traditions and culture of the area would have unfolded before his eyes.
Pain Court is the abbreviation of the saying "Le pain est court", or "bread is scarce", which became in a sense the watchword of the early settlement which originated in about 1815. Through the years the picturesque name "Pain Court", symbolic of the early hardships of the settlement, has been resolutely retained by the people.
Their industriousness has overcome the hardships of an earlier era, resulting in a community recognized for its positive and unique contribution to the county of Kent; the area has prided itself on the strength of the family unit,the importance of high moral and ethical standards, and its people of deep religious convictions. They are recognized as having one of the finest agricultural communities in Canada and their emphasis on the importance of education has produced many prominent men and women in business, professional life and municipal affairs. I recall reviewing the cadet corps, composed of both boys and girls at the Pain Court secondary school. It is recognized as one of the finest corps in Canada; this, again, is a reflection on only one aspect of the culture of that particular community.
Sir, time does not permit me the opportunity of describing the many attributes that truly reflect the culture of Pain Court and the surrounding area. Surely it is obvious to the minister and members of the House that the documentary was an insult to the people and did not reflect the culture and traditions of the community.
As the minister also knows, I tabled in the House of Commons on November 17 last a petition containing over 400 names, which I personally signed without hesitation. Again, I have had no response to that particular petition.
Perhaps the attitude of the residents can best be described by the first of many letters I received from that area. Let me quote a portion of that letter dated October 27, 1976:
Adjournment Debate
Could you please make a thorough investigation into a program which was seen on CBET, Windsor, Channel 9 on Monday October 25, at 7 p.m. or thereabouts?
The station called it a "documentary" on Pain Court. All it was actually was free publicity for a strip joint called the Dover Hotel, which unfortunately is situated at the north end of our beautiful little village. There are so many beautiful scenes and beautiful people in the village to interview, why concentrate the major part of the program on the owner of a third class establishment and show the stripper nude ...
When word spread that there would be a documentary on the French culture in Pain Court, people flocked to the TV and had their children watch the program as well, because at 7 p.m. this is called prime time isn't it? There could not be anything objectionable on Pain Court. It is such a beautiful, peaceful sleepy little village. The people expected what was announced-French culture in the village of Pain Court. Little did they dream that they and their children would be subjected to seeing a stripper in action. Publicity of that sort only attracts undesirable riff-raff from the surrounding area. These undesirables spoil the atmosphere of Pain Court.
I recognize that this is the first time the minister has been appointed to the cabinet. I am generous enough to believe that his very flippant response to my question in the House of Commons was perhaps a reflection of his inexperience. I am also certain that, in reflecting on his initial response, the minister will not only be prepared to apologize to the residents of Pain Court in the township of Dover but will be in a position to report on my initial request for an investigation and a request for a public apology to the residents of that particular village.


Mr. Jacques Guiibault (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the hon. member's interest in the subject, we have secured a reply from the CBC.
I wish to first say a few words about some of the hon. member's last remarks. I do not think it is fair to question the capability of the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) about an item produced by the CBC. We all know the distance between the CBC and the Department of the Secretary of State. The CBC is at arm's length from the government because of the Broadcasting Act. Anyone who knows the broadcasting system in Canada knows that the minister did not have anything to do with this production.
For the benefit of the hon. member and the House, I will give the following answer that I have received from the CBC.
The item in question, a seven-minute insert in the local television news and current affairs program on station CBET in Windsor, was one of a series of short essays produced by that station on rural communities in southwestern Ontario.
The object of these essays has been to reflect the particular characteristics of the community and to note the issues of interest to the population. There is no intent to prepare a sociological study. The camera crew arrives in town, talks to the residents, shoots film showing what the community looks like, and tries to make the essay interesting and entertaining.
The item on Pain Court showed scenes of the lovely pastoral setting of the town, had interviews with the shop owner and the hotel owner, brief scenes of the stripper, commented on the comfortable bilingualism the townspeople had achieved, and mentioned the French language high school. It is noted the
80008- 19Vi

January 27, 1977
Adjournment Debate
attraction that the strip show at the hotel had become, drawing people from around the area to Pain Court.
To produce an item on Pain Court without mentioning the strip show and the interest it had engendered, would have been less than reflective of the community.
For the benefit of the Elouse and the hon. member I should like to quote something else which appeared in an editorial in the Windsor Star on November 9, 1976, just to show that various people hold various opinions. The article reads as follows:
Conservative M.P. Dr. J. R. Holmes of Lambton-Kent is off base in his demand for a public apology over a recent CBC television documentary which showed a stripper at a Pain Court hotel.
Dr. Holmes branded the show an insult to all residents of the southern Ontario region, and asked Secretary of State John Roberts to investigate. The program, he said, was "obviously unbalanced" because much of it centred on "a hotel and a nude stripper."
Not so, Dr. Holmes.
There is a hotel in Pain Court. It does feature strippers. It is a popular show, and many people know about Pain Court because of it. There are other attractions at Pain Court-


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


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-REASON FOR ALLEGED SECRET EXPULSION FROM CANADA OF MR. PERDOMO, REPRESENTATIVE OFCUBA
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief in that the information that I am seeking is very simple and to the point. It relates to my questions of this Tuesday dealing with information I have been able to obtain regarding the expulsion from Canada of certain Cuban diplomats. In order not to confuse the issue, let me make it very clear that I am not referring to the recent expulsion of the five Cubans, including three diplomats, who operated a spy school in Montreal.
I am specifically referring to the expulsion of one Alfonso Herrera Perdomo, second in command of the Cuban Embassy in Ottawa, and Rafael Reyes, an administrator officer at the Cuban Consulate in Toronto, both of whom were expelled from Canada last June without the Department of External Affairs making these expulsions public. Mr. Speaker, one must assume that either the government was trying to hide or cover up this expulsion, or that it has become the policy of the Trudeau administration not to announce the expulsion from Canada of foreign diplomats. The latter would be more in line, I suppose, since it seems to me that between the Soviets and the Cubans, expulsion of diplomats is becoming a regular habit.
It is difficult to comprehend why the government continues to tolerate and deal in good faith, as it does, with a nation that continues to show disrespect towards Canada and Canadian relations. Not only have we allowed the Cubans to operate a training camp for intelligence operations on Canadian soil, most probably under the supervision of the Soviet KGB; not only did the government close its eyes when Rafael Reyes was

organizing and supporting revolutionary left-wing Chilean refugee movements here in Canada with the hope of overthrowing the ruling Chilean government; not only does the government tolerate communist spy activities, be they Soviet or Cuban, right under its nose; not only did the Department of External Affairs allow Mr. Perdomo to negotiate with CIDA officials and employees with the hope of recruiting them as agents for the Cubans while at the same time attempting to disguise what could have been $23 million in grants and loans to that country in such a way as to make it look as though the loan was $10 million-and this, of course, is backed by the memorandum from the agency itself-but the government continues to deal with Cuba as if nothing has happened.
The aid program already consists of a $10 million loan at a nominal 3 per cent interest for a 30 year term with repayments not to begin until 1982, as well as an outright grant of $3.9 million. And this while small and medium sized businesses in Canada, operated and owned by Canadians, are virtually ignored and allowed to go bankrupt as witnessed by the highest bankruptcy rate this country has ever seen.
What I am asking the External Affairs Department to consider is the following. First, confirm the obvious, which is that Mr. Perdomo as well as Mr. Reyes were expelled from Canada while in Canada last summer. Second, inform the Canadian public whether or not the policy of the government is indeed not to make expulsions of foreign diplomats public knowledge. Third, because of the continuing disrespect shown by the Cubans toward Canadian relations, I ask that the whole matter of the Cuban aid program be brought before the sub-committee of the external affairs committee dealing with CIDA, and that all current aid programs and negotiations with that country cease until the committee has had a chance to resolve these problems.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, that the parliamentary secretary does not have the authority to answer positively my reasonable requests, but perhaps he can pass them on to his minister for consideration. While I am asking him to pass things on, perhaps he could advise the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that the time has certainly come for the Prime Minister to stop shouting at the top of his lungs "Viva Cuba" and "Viva Castro" and do something positive so that we can all continue to shout "Viva Canada".


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I will leave editorial comment aside for the moment and simply give the response. As the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs said in replying to the questions raised by the hon. member on January 25, the recent action the government has taken regarding Cuban officials is an indication of the seriousness with which it looks at activities undertaken by representatives of any foreign government in contravention of their status in Canada. The government has applied the same principles over the years.
January 27, 1977

Last June the Canadian government requested the Cuban government to withdraw Alfonso Herrera Perdomo for activities incompatible with his diplomatic status in Canada. No other Cuban officials were involved in that case. The name of Rafael Reyes has also been mentioned in the press. In fact Reyes left Canada early in 1976 at the end of his tour of duty here. I
I can assure the House that the decision to extend aid to Cuba was based solely on the usual criteria and was not in any way influenced by what has been described by the hon. member as "deceitful practices" of any representative of any foreign government.
Adjournment Debate
More generally, hon. members on both sides of the House know very well that relations between countries may involve both good elements and, on occasion, ones that are unsatisfactory. When incidents such as this occur, it is not always advisable or in the best interests of maintaining the over-all relationship to discuss publicly and in detail the unsatisfactory problems, but rather to dispose of them quickly. The important thing is that appropriate action on any problems be taken immediately by the government, and this has been done in all such cases. These situations naturally make it more difficult to move our relations with Cuba forward as we would wish. Nevertheless, it is our intention that our over-all relations not be affected.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.


Friday, January 28, 1977