1977-05-06

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of Standing Order 43 I rise to present a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Since severe storm damage in Western Newfoundland has had disastrous effects on gear and boats of lobster fishermen, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie):
That this House orders that emergency measures be taken by the Minister of Fisheries to provide replacement assistance to lobster Fishermen affected by the limited season.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the terms of Standing Order 43 the motion can be presented only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!


Mr. Speaker:: The motion, therefore, cannot be put.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the terms of Standing Order 43.
The commission report of Dean Finn of the University of British Columbia, established by the Minister of Labour to investigate health and safety in grain elevators on the B.C. waterfront following the death of five workers, was completed in October, 1976. The report has not yet been made public, but it details the fact that federal labour inspectors have failed to properly enforce existing laws and safety regulations. Whereas Dean Finn documents serious and hazardous working conditions in grain elevators not only in B.C., but across Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House condemns the contravention of existing health and safety regulations, and the lack of enforcement by the Department of Labour, and urges the government to implement Dean Finn's recommendations.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion can be presented under the terms of Standing Order 43 only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr.   Ren@: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Further to the announcement made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) on March 4 about hospital services provided for women, which include abortion on request, considering also that in the provision of such special services it seems to be agreed that the father has no responsibilities after conception, and that such measures are directly contrary to the opinion and convictions of the vast majority of Canadians, and that the 1969 amendment to the Criminal Code allowed for an overly wide interpretation of cases where the mother's health is threatened, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette):
That the House urge the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) to amend the Criminal Code to make the legislation on abortion more restrictive.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, such motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

May 6, 1977
Abortion


MEASURES TO PROMOTE USE OF SOLAR POWER AND CONSERVE ENERGY-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the determination of President Carter to implement the use of solar energy in his public building program, and in view of the report entitled "Solar Home Heating in Canada-Why Not?", commissioned by the Department of Supply and Services, which points out that Canada has made only token gestures to promote solar power, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources make a statement on motions advising what steps the government is taking to correct its lack of activity in promoting the use of solar power in Canada in government buildings and generally, and to correct its faltering and token energy conservation program.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTION FAMILY PLANNING CENTRES SHOULD NOT COUNSEL IN FAVOUR OF ABORTION-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of concern about this matter expressed by many Canadians, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale):
That the Minister of National Health and Welfare reassure the House and Canadians that the family planning centres to which he referred in his March 4 statement which will be providing information on abortion do not counsel in favour of abortion in order to promote abortion as a family planning technique.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MANPOWER
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move a motion under Standing Order 43 regarding a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the use of Canada Manpower Offices as a hiring agency for strike-breakers in the dispute involving the secondary school teachers of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House urges the Minister of Manpower and Immigration immediately to stop the use of Canada Manpower Offices as a hiring agency for strike-breakers in the legal dispute between the secondary school teachers of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry and the responsible school board of that area.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that abortion on request amounts to nothing more or less than legalizing the murder and assassination of innocent children and that an organization in all Canadian provinces is now fighting very efficiently against abortion, thereby deserving our admiration and our support in their efforts to promote respect for life, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the House congratulate the members and supporters of the Pro-Life movement who are now in the national capital to promote greater respect for human life, and encourage them to pursue their wonderful humanitarian activities.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
May 6, 1977


CONGRATULATIONS TO MR. ALBERT ST. AMOUR ON RETIREMENT AS DEPUTY-SERGEANT-AT-ARMS
Mr. Speaker:: Before commencing the Oral Question Period, may I say that I know hon. members will have noticed that this morning the mace was carried in the usual procession by the Assistant Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms, Mr. Albert St. Amour, who today is marking-I know hon. members would want to join me in also marking the occasion-41 years of public service, 36 years and six months of which have been in the service of the House of Commons. Indeed, it was exactly at that time 36 years and six months ago today that he was promised he could start the job here the next day. It will be exactly 36 years and six months on May 7, and on this occasion we are marking Mr. St. Amour's last day here. He is standing at the end of the Chamber, and I am sure all hon. members would want to wish him well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!'



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Over the past weeks since the introduction of Bill No. 1 in the Quebec Assembly, we have had from ministers of this government a crescendo of veiled threats, innuendos and insinuations. We have heard the Minister of Supply and Services imply in committee this week that the passage of Bill No. 1 in its present form would mean a cutback in the federal presence in Quebec. Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce have taken the same tack. This morning there are reports of a statement by the president of Via Rail who has indicated that he is reconsidering his plans to relocate in Montreal.
With respect, Mr. Speaker, I think it is time for the government to either fish or cut bait. I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister to tell the House clearly and unequivocally whether it is indeed this government's policy, in the event that Bill No. 1 passes unchanged, that it will put a ban on further federal expansion into the province of Quebec?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, no, that decision has not been taken, nor could it have been taken on a speculative hypothesis. It is still the hope of the government that the bill, which is not yet law, will be modified in the course of the legislative process and that a more moderate approach will be adopted by the Quebec government with respect to this bill. My hon. friend will
Oral Questions
remember that some days ago the Prime Minister did express the view of the government generally on this bill. The view he expressed was to the effect that its primary purpose, which is to strengthen the French language in Quebec, was desirable; but it was regrettable that it impinged upon certain minority rights. That is the extent of the view I would like to express today in respect of that bill. Obviously, it is a very complex piece of legislation which is still before the National Assembly.
It may be that the government will be giving further views later.


PROPOSED CONSULTATIONS WITH QUEBEC TO PROTECT FEDERAL LANGUAGE POLICY
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the answer, but I would hope the Acting Prime Minister would instruct his cabinet colleagues as to what the policy of the government really is. Thus far the response from this government has been some trumpeting from the sidelines and nothing very constructive in terms of dealing with the government of the province of Quebec. I will ask the Acting Prime Minister, with respect to that point, whether the federal government, the ministers, or others are now involved in active discussions directly with the government of Quebec to ensure that the language rights, which the Acting Prime Minister spoke of embodied in the policies of bilingualism, which are the policies of this government, are being protected within the province of Quebec?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister dealt with that question some time ago in response to a question by the Leader of the New Democratic Party. He expressed the view that at this point discussions were not taking place between the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier of Quebec, and that at the moment it did not appear that such discussions would take place with respect to this bill.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, that is a very strange answer in view of what we face in this country. It seems to imply that the white paper and Bill No. 1 are hypothetical matters. I want to say that that bill is not hypothetical. There is a parliamentary commission preparing to meet in the province of Quebec. Those hearings are to begin very shortly. Since the precedent for the giving of provincial testimony before standing committees of this House on legislation which affects them is well established, the principle itself being well established, will the Acting Prime Minister tell the House if the government intends to make a statement to the parliamentary commission which will consider the impact of Quebec's Bill on the language rights of Canadians?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, no such action has been decided upon and one would have to consider whether such intervention by the federal government in the legislative processes of the province of Quebec would be productive in this particular case. Probably it could have the reverse effect.

May 6, 1977
Oral Questions INDIAN AFFAIRS


SUGGESTION THAT QUEBEC'S BILL 1 CONFLICTS WITH BILL C-9 RATIFYING JAMES BAY AGREEMENT-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development? My question arises from statements made on behalf of the Cree and Inuit peoples that Bill 1, of the legislative assembly of the province of Quebec, is in direct conflict with Bill C-9, dealing with the James Bay Agreement, which was ratified a short time ago by this House. Has the minister obtained or requested a legal opinion on this issue?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, it is correct that the James Bay settlement gives the Cree and Inuit peoples the right to use their own languages as primary languages and English or French, according to their choice, as secondary languages. Whether Bill 1 contradicts the James Bay settlement is not yet clear.


Walter David Baker: But that is the question, surely.


William Warren Allmand: Wait a minute. We are seeking advice on that subject.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since a decision of the Privy Council some time ago settled that the minister, acting on behalf of the government, has constitutional responsibility for the Cree and Inuit peoples, will the minister undertake, before Bill C-9 is given royal assent and the other bill is taken to a stage beyond recall, that he will refer this matter to a court of competent jurisdiction, so that it can be decided what those rights are?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if that will be necessary but I can assure this House that the federal government and my department will uphold the James Bay Agreement as written.


Walter David Baker: This government is paralyzed.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, will the government uphold those rights, if necessary, to the extent of challenging the provisions of Bill 1 which may contravene the provisions of Bill C-9?


Walter David Baker: The government is paralyzed.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, we will take all measures to make sure the James Bay Agreement is put into operation.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: What about using the army?
[Mr. MacEachen.J



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Can the minister confirm that the Finn commission report, commissioned by him two years ago to investigate health and safety in west coast grain elevators following the death of five men in an October 1975 grain terminal fire, documents the failure of the federal labour department to enforce properly existing laws on health and safety regulations, particularly regarding grain dust and chemicals, and, if so, what is he doing to implement the recommendations of that report?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's suggestion is totally erroneous. Without doubt what happened was severely tragic. Immediately after it happened we appointed Dr. Finn, of the University of British Columbia, to compile a detailed report. In the meantime we have acted throughout these proceedings, with the co-operation of Henry Kanes, the head of the local union, and management, to implement the highest possible standard and have issued directives along that line. Dr. Finn's group has been studying the matter. When the report is available we will do what we did in the case of the Cape Breton mines, issue new directives in accordance with the latest advanced technology, to make sure that tragedies of that kind never again occur.



REASON FOR DELAY IN PUBLISHING FINN REPORT ON SAFETY IN GRAIN ELEVATORS

Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I am sure the minister has read the report. He said here in the House on April 20: "we have also appointed a commission headed by Dr. Finn of UBC." He went on to say "he will make detailed technical recommendations very shortly." I would like to ask the minister whether he can confirm that he has now had the report since last October 7, and some of the unions have had it for five months. I understand the companies also saw it several months ago. Can he confirm that and, if so, why has he not released it since he has had it for so long? What is he trying to hide?


John Carr Munro: We do not have the final report. The hon. member may very well be dealing with the reports and findings of Dr. Finn. As he has progressed, naturally he has made his findings available to the parties who are co-operating with him to ensure the highest standards. As these findings and views are made known, it is in the interest of all parties and, I am sure, Dr. Finn's wish, that they receive them in a piecemeal fashion, so to say, so that action can be taken concurrently with the progress of the inquiry. We are not trying to hide the final document from anybody. In fact, the very method of procedure in this inquiry in letting the parties know about it is a negation of any unwarranted suggestions from the hon. member that we are trying to hide anything at all.
May 6, 1977



DATE OF FINAL FINN REPORT-ACTION TO ENSURE PROPER HEALTH CONDITIONS IN ELEVATOR AT HALIFAX

Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In view of all the
speculation in western Canada, when can we expect to see the final report, because people are really becoming concerned about it?
At the same time can the minister tell us, in view of the statement by the manager of the National Harbours Board elevator in Halifax, that health conditions there are also unacceptable, what action he will take to remedy that situation as well?
Hod. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour): I can let the
hon. member know of many of the findings of Dr. Finn's inquiry and of other studies we have commissioned or table in the House the extensive degree of work that has been done in this area which applies to grain elevators everywhere in Canada, in Thunder Bay, Halifax and other places, because they deal with some of the fundamental questions of health hazards for the men involved of grain dust of various kinds. It is a highly technical area. I hope the report will be applicable throughout the entire grain industry in terms of the protection of the men involved.

[ Translation]



POSSIBILITY OF BROADENING CRIMINAL CODE

Mr.   Ren@: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Can the minister explain clearly to the House what he meant by his statement on March 4 last with regard to medical clinic care for women? In other words, does he intend to broaden the interpretation of the notion "endangering the mother's health" to achieve no more and no less than abortion on demand?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No, Mr. Speaker.



MINISTER'S REPLY TO REPRESENTATIONS OF UNION FOR LIFE

Mr.   Ren@: Mr. Speaker, has the minister read all the requests addressed to him in this regard, and specially that of the Pro-Life movement which is now holding a festival for life here in Ottawa, and what does he intend to do further to those requests?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I replied to those requests saying that they seemed to be based on a misinterpretation of what I said. And once again, it is not a question of broadening the interpretation of the law as it now stands.
Oral Questions



INQUIRY WHETHER FAMILY PLANNING CENTRES WILL COUNSEL IN FAVOUR OF ABORTION

Paul Yewchuk: I would like to ask the minister by way of a supplementary question whether he would clarify if it is his intention that the family planning centres to which he referred on March 4 will be counselling in favour of abortion as a family planning technique.
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: No, Mr. Speaker.



ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM   DATE PROGRAM WILL END-ALLEGED FAILURE OF GOVERNMENT TO PUT POSITION ON VOLUNTARY RESTRAINT BEFORE LABOUR AND MANAGEMENT

Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Yesterday evening the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce stated in the House that the recent appointment of the new chairman of AIB indicated that the program will not end by the end of 1977. Would the Acting Prime Minister indicate if this is government policy?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think that the appointment of Mr. Renouf as chairman of the board is not to be interpreted as a presentiment of an early end of the controls program. The Minister of Finance has frequently stated that the controls program could end only if a firm understanding were reached as to the economic behaviour that would avoid any burst of inflation. So that is the position of the government.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. The parliamentary secretary also said that controls will not end because the government cannot expect voluntary restraint, yet in the Financial Post of May 7 a front page article carries a report of the former AIB chairman, Jean-Luc Pepin which is particularly critical of the government for failing to spell out its position on voluntary restraint. It reports him as saying the government should have done this two weeks ago at its tri-partite meeting with big business and big labour. Would the Acting Prime Minister indicate if Mr. Pepin conveyed this view to the ministry before his resignation and if so, what answer did he receive?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we are accustomed to receiving advice from many sources and frequently good advice from the former chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board. I am not directly aware of any such discussion, which would probably have taken place between the former chairman of the board and the Minister of Finance, but the general position of the

May 6, 1977
Oral Questions
government with respect to decontrols has been made clear frequently in the House, and I think is well understood.



REASON FOR RESIGNATION OF MR. PEPIN AS CHAIRMAN OF BOARD

Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary question. In the article in the Financial Post to which I have referred Mr. Pepin is quoted as saying:
The government is abdicating its responsibility to govern ...
And further:
What you have is the government saying to the CMA and the CLC: 'You make policy for Canada'. That's not acceptable in our democracy.
Would the Acting Prime Minister indicate if these were in fact the reasons why Mr. Pepin chose to resign as chairman of the AIB? In short, did he resign out of utter frustration at the lack of government policy?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely certain that is not the case.



CITIZENSHIP


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State which was the subject of a motion moved under Standing Order 43 by my colleague the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay a few days ago. I think this matter applies to any member of parliament. We are wondering whether it is within the wit and wisdom of the minister to devise some simple system for issuing citizenship certificates, particularly those needed for passports. I can assure the minister the present system is archaic and chaotic.


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, we have experienced a virtual doubling of applications for citizenship. This was not entirely unforeseen as a result of the provisions in the new law which was recently proclaimed, though the flow of applications is above what we had expected. I am advised that within two or three months the backlog should be cleared up. Yesterday I signed a letter to go to all hon. members which I am not sure has been received by their offices as yet. It indicated the steps we are taking and asked for their co-operation, saying that I would particularly like to receive from them examples of hardship cases so that I could take steps to make sure they are dealt with promptly.


Mr. Fairweather:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would it be possible to have a better system for those citizenship certificates needed for passports? People cannot possibly wait three or four months for passport applications. One suggestion I would make is that there should be some liaison between the passport office and the citizenship office. At the

moment there is none; it is as if they are living in two separate countries.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I will look into this suggestion and see whether there would be an effective way of improving liaison between passport offices and citizenship applications. I expect that is not the root of the blockage and it might not be possible to significantly ameliorate the situation through such an approach but I will investigate it.



AIR TRANSPORT


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Transport arises from reports of negotiations between Pacific Western Airlines and Transair for the take-over of the latter company. Could the minister confirm or deny the reports and could he give an assurance that they will not further delay the implementation of the long-promised prairie regional air service?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have been aware for some time of the discussions which have been taking place in connection with the possible rearrangement of regional air carriers, including that to which the hon. member referred. I have not heard either formally or informally of any finality to the arrangement at this point. I cannot give any clear indication of the impact this would have on the prairie services application of Transair.



DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF PRAIRIE REGIONAL SERVICE

Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister at this time give a tentative date for the inauguration of service urgently needed for the economic development of that region?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the difficulty with that is the procedures which must take place are in the hands of the Canadian Transport Commission, it is impossible for me to forecast the various steps they will take. I believe May 9 was the date they set for the final reply to interventions by the various applicants and after that time they were to outline the next steps to be taken before they reached a final decision on the applications.



PROPOSED SALE OF TRANSAIR-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE MAINTENANCE FACILITIES WILL REMAIN IN WINNIPEG

Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to address a question to the Minister of Transport on the proposed sale of Transair. Since Manitobans lost Air Canada maintenance facilities, an action which in the view of most Manitobans was unjustified, and in view of the possible sale of Transair whose headquarters are in Winnipeg, could the min-
May 6, 1977

Oral Questions AIR CANADA
ister assure the House that if the sale of Transair were to be approved by the Department of Transport and the Canadian Transport Commission, it would be based on the provision that the overhaul and maintenance facilities of Transair, presently located in Winnipeg where approximately 600 Manitobans are employed, would not be transferred from Winnipeg as was done with Air Canada with the approval of this government?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the question was framed in a hypothetical way but I should like to tell the hon. member that this has not been hypothetical and that in all the discussions there has been a clear understanding that the maintenance base of Transair would be maintained at Winnipeg.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the meeting of Western premiers in Brandon in which the view was clearly expressed that the maintenance facilities were to remain in Winnipeg, could I have the assurance of the minister and the government that if the sale were to take place, those maintenance facilities would remain in Winnipeg?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I indicated the understanding that they would remain was clearly a part of all discussions. The question the hon. member asks me in a direct way is really not related to governmental administrative responsibility. The thing I would have to be satisfied about is the undertaking that would have to be made at the time the matter came before the CTC and the government.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Transport. In light of the fact that the international airport in Calgary serves the oil and gas companies and that the new depot was promised first by two former ministers of transport, Mr. Hees and Mr. Pickersgill and that there has been such a long delay with the result that the cost is now five times what it would have been originally, may I ask the minister if he has been able to negotiate with the seven commercial airlines that say they could not afford to pay the lease cost under the conditions set down by the minister and the department? Has there been a consummation of that agreement? We are just about to open the new depot, I understand, after these long years of frustration.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the final meeting to agree upon the arrangements has not taken place to date or at least had not taken place when I inquired last week. I can tell the hon. member that as usual he has nothing at all to worry about. Everything will go very well and Calgary will be able to be very proud of what will be a very fine airport.



REASON FOR CHANGE IN SCHEDULE OF FLIGHTS BETWEEN CALGARY AND OTTAWA

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the minister grins; all of those in the front row are in the habit of using all this rhetoric. When the minister is looking into the other matter which I asked about and which he did not answer, I wonder if he would check why Air Canada has changed its air routes so that it only takes three and a half hours to fly from Calgary to Toronto, but to get any connection to this city you have to wait at least two and a half hours. Would the minister look into that and see why western Canada is discriminated against?



INCOME TAX


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. Is the minister in a position to tell the House what decision she has made concerning the measures she will adopt to reduce the excessive tax deduction now being made in the case of public servants residing in Ottawa and being moved to Hull?
[Translation\


Hon.   Monique@: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I cannot give any answer today to the hon. member, to his colleague from Ottawa Centre or to members opposite. But as soon as I get an answer-a positive one, I hope-I shall convey it to interested parties in the most diligent way.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. The international sugar agreement negotiations started in Geneva, Switzerland on, I believe, April 18. Is Canada participating in these negotiations and what are our trading plans in the negotiations?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we are participating in the program. One member asked me that question in the committee. We had our people here from Geneva to discuss the program. The government approved the program that could be used in negotiations. I will have to find out whether I have the right to inform the House and the hon. member. If so, in due course I will outline our program, what
5358

May 6, 1977
Oral Questions
we will be arguing for and what we will be making representations for at Geneva, on behalf of the sugar producers in Canada.
Mir. Murta: Mr. Speaker, the minister's answer is entirely too vague. He is too secretive. The United States plan for an international sugar agreement sets a minimum price of ten cents a pound and a maximum price of 20 cents a pound. This information is readily available in a good many United States agricultural publications. Will the minister outline the Canadian position vis-a-vis a minimum and maximum price? If the Americans can make their prices public, surely Canada can do the same. The minister should not be so defensive and secretive.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Americans have not made all of their program with regard to a sugar policy public. I imagine when they negotiate they keep some of it to themselves before they go into negotiations. As I said, I will check with my colleagues in government to see whether I have the right to make my position public and will do so at the first of the week if I am permitted to do that.



MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-POSSIBILITY OF REQUEST BY ARCTIC GAS FOR GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE TO RAISE CAPITAL

Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It concerns the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. The Arctic Gas consortium has indicated several times in evidence before the National Energy Board that it would require government guarantees in order to raise the capital required for the Mackenzie Valley. On December 13 at the National Energy Board, the chairman and president of Arctic Gas told the board that as soon as the preliminary decision, which was the Judge Litt decision, was released from the Federal Power Commission in Washington that they would contact the United States and Canadian governments and negotiate vigorously on the question of guarantees, and that they hoped to be in a position to report back to the National Energy Board with details of those negotiations by the end of the hearings. It has been three months since the preliminary decision was released. Since the National Energy Board hearings will probably end next week, will the minister tell the House whether his department or any other to his knowledge has received formal or informal representations from Arctic Gas on this question and, if so, what is the state of those negotiations that are taking place on government guarantees?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I indicated in the House on other occasions that there have been indications that the particular CAGPL application might require government guarantees. Those indications have been given to us by the officers of the corporation. To the best of my knowledge, there has not been

any formal request by the CAGPL consortium for government guarantees. As to the state of any negotiations between them and the National Energy Board, I am not in a position to provide any information at this time. However, I will be pleased to try to find out.



MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-ALLEGED PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT BY ARCTIC GAS AND PREPARATION OF LEGISLATION BY GOVERNMENT

Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, in the last two weeks Arctic Gas has confirmed that it has started giving firm orders for major pieces of equipment, for example such things as steel and an Arctic ditcher. At the same time, there are indications that the government is preparing legislation with regard to the pipeline and to a pipeline authority. Can the minister indicate whether anyone is in the process of preparing legislation with regard to the Mackenzie Valley. Also, can he advise whether the consortium is now in the process of purchasing equipment for the Mackenzie Valley?


Alastair William Gillespie: On the last point with respect to purchasing equipment, I have no knowledge of any plans or any contracts issued by the Mackenzie Valley CAGPL consortium. As to the second question whether anyone is doing any work on the preparation of legislation with respect to the Mackenzie Valley pipeline authority, it is fair to say that there may well be people who are trying to assess what kind of legislation might be necessary in the event that the government takes a decision in favour of either the Mackenzie Valley pipeline authority or the Alcan route. I am sure the hon. member understands that in the event a decision were made to go either route, there would likely be a number of matters upon which this parliament would have to legislate. In that sense, there may be some contingency work being done at the present time. Quite frankly, I have asked that it be done because I think it important that we do not become faced with a situation where a heck of a lot of work has to be done in a very short space of time. On a contingency basis, I would expect that work to go forward.



MINISTER'S POSITION ON ABORTION

Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Members of the Pro-Life movement now being in the national capital to assert their arguments in favour of greater respect for life, I would like to know if the minister expects to make any statement during the week in support of respect for life to show Canadians that his government is prepared to act to safeguard human life, particularly unborn children who have a special need for legal protection?
May 6, 1977


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the government has laid down very clearly its position on that matter on many occasions. I have made many statements about it in the House during the past years. Perhaps the only statement I would have to make today in the name of members of all parties-who will join me, 1 am sure-is to extend our heartfelt wishes to all Canadian mothers on the occasion of Mother's Day which we are about to celebrate all across Canada.



FISHERIES


Jack Marshall: 

ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. It arises out of answers he gave to the House yesterday in reply to my questions relating to recruitment by the RCMP of reporters to spy and snoop on their fellow reporters. The implication of the answer given by the Solicitor General yesterday was that Soviet correspondents in the Parliamentary Press Gallery were under surveillance. Is the minister now in a position to specify whether any or all of them are under surveillance? If so, has he given instructions to have their visas terminated or is this
Oral Questions
simply a fishing expedition the RCMP are entering into with regard to parliamentary reporting?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I might point out to the hon. member that he has used the word "Soviet". In my answer in the House yesterday, I referred to the foreign press corps. Whenever there is evidence of illegal activity in this country by people who are here for other purposes, as the facts brought out over the past 12 months have indicated, the hon. member knows that appropriate action will be taken by this government.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I should like to direct my supplementary to the Secretary of State responsible for the CBC. Press stories in the Ottawa Citizen have indicated that the RCMP were approaching a prospective correspondent for the CBC in Moscow, one Denis Baxter. Since this will place a heavy onus on Mr. Baxter if and when he goes to Moscow, would the minister let the House know whether it is the practice of the CBC to have their correspondents act as information gatherers for the RCMP? Can he put the record straight so that Mr. Baxter will not be under any undue pressure when he is in Moscow.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I know nothing of this question. I do think, however, that while the question may be within the bounds of parliamentary propriety, it is extraordinarily irresponsible for a member to make insinuations of that kind unless he has substantive evidence to bring forward, and, if he does, he should provide it to the proper authorities. I think the hon. member owes an apology to Mr. Baxter.


An hon. Member:: You did not see the news!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Solicitor General indicated, when made aware of the approach, that this was not an unusual situation. The hon. gentleman's own colleague has confirmed the fact that this particular approach was made. The Secretary of State applies himself to matters related to the CBC, and I ask him to take it upon himself to find out what is happening within the CBC to protect the employees of that corporation.


John (Moody) Roberts: I think the hon. member has misrepresented my colleague's statement and that he owes an apology to Mr. Baxter.


Francis Fox: Perhaps I can clarify the matter, Mr. Speaker. At no point did I confirm that the RCMP approached Mr. Baxter. As a matter of fact, I am informed that the RCMP did not approach Mr. Baxter. But it is possible, if Mr. Baxter so desires, that he be given a briefing on protective security
80012-6OV2

May 6, 1977
Oral Questions
because of his posting to Moscow. The RCMP does not ask CBC correspondents to become information gatherers on their behalf. The responsibility of the RCMP as far as intelligence operations are concerned is limited to intelligence operations in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



FUNDY TIDAL POWER PROJECT-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON WORK OF REVIEW COMMITTEE

Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is the minister in a position to tell the House whether he has intensified the investigation being carried out by the Fundy Tidal Power Review Committee with a view to the production of a final report on that committee's work before the end of 1977?


Alastair William Gillespie: I am not in a position to give a precise answer to that question at the present time but 1 hope to be very shortly. Most of the work on phase one has been completed and an assessment is being made right now with respect to ongoing work which might be undertaken. I hope to be able to make a more complete statement within a few weeks.



REQUEST FOR BRIEFING OF MEMBERS ON PROGRESS OF WORK ON FUNDY TIDAL POWER PROJECT

Robert Carman Coates: Would the minister and his officials be willing to meet with an ad hoc committee of members of parliament from both the Commons and the other place to discuss all aspects of the work as far as Fundy power is concerned? This is a non-partisan committee composed of members representing maritime provinces.


Alastair William Gillespie: I would be very pleased to consider any suggestions the hon. member might wish to make to me. I can tell him I have been meeting with my own colleagues from the maritime region on this important question and that they have been providing me with a lot of useful advice. So I have already set up the kind of committee he is talking about among my own colleagues.


Robert Carman Coates: I appreciate the minister's statement but I do not think a tidal power program for the maritime provinces is one which should be left to Liberal members of parliament only. Would he be willing to meet with all members from the region so that we might all have an appreciation of what the government intends to do in this regard?


Alastair William Gillespie: Of course, I am prepared to meet with members of the House from whatever side on this issue. I have

been meeting with Tory representatives already. The Premier of New Brunswick is very much involved in this question and is supporting the idea in a financial way. Similarly, I have been meeting with the Premier of Nova Scotia who is also interested in this question. I am not sure the hon. member hasn't something reasonable to offer, and if he has I shall be glad to hear from him.



INCOME TAX


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Revenue. Some weeks ago an interpretation bulletin was issued by the income tax division of the hon. lady's department relating to the treatment of employee benefits in connection with so-called interest-free or low-interest loans as a condition of employment. Changes were made without reference to parliament and in the absence of an order in council. My question is this: by what authority does the minister issue an interpretation bulletin which drastically alters the tax pattern of many thousands of people in this country? Would she explain precisely the reasons for this change and the basis on which it was made?
[ Translation]


Hon.   Monique@: Mr. Speaker, mine is an administration department which is usually very prudent and which is even accused sometimes of being unduly prudent and too much on its guard. Therefore I am particularly surprised by the innuendo of the hon. member and I am going to check immediately about this interpretation bulletin. They are published on a regular basis and I do not know what the hon. member is referring to.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I am terribly sorry to see that the minister seems rather shocked because I ask her a question about the object of a public bulletin and about the changes which have occurred. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the minister should be aware of the change in policy mentioned in this interpretation bulletin and that, if necessary, she should ask her deputy minister to advise her more frequently about what is going on in her department.


Miss B6gin:: Mr. Speaker, of course I work in very close co-operation with my officials, which is why I am surprised by the question of the hon. member, for he is very well aware of my department's responsibilities. I do not get to see all these interpretation bulletins because they are administrative instruments detailing and explaining laws and regulations passed by Parliament. We never initiate policy changes because that is the responsibility of my colleague the Minister of Finance. In order not to offend my hon. colleague, I shall indeed check into this matter before stating positively that no change of policies has occurred.
May 6, 1977



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: My question is for the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker, in his capacity as minister in charge of the Wheat Board. It arises out of the report issued by the Wheat Board related specifically to the wheat pool account. Can the hon. gentleman explain why administrative and general expenses in connection with the operations of this account increased by more than 50 per cent, from $68.6 million in 1974-75 to $103.8 million in 1975-76, while handling roughly the same amount of wheat? Since this cost will have a direct relationship to the final payment which was received by the producers for this pool account, would the minister ensure that these additional costs will be adequately and properly accounted for and explained to the House and the producers of Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the Wheat Board has been making a very special effort to explain in great detail the costs and administrative issues involved in connection with the board and it will continue to do so. I will be happy to answer any questions in greater detail for the hon. member. A number of costs were higher this year. Interest rates at a very high level and initial prices being very high too, meant that carrying costs were very high; but I would not want to attribute the total cost of this by any means until I can have a more detailed reply for the hon. member.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Inasmuch as the minister has pointed out that interest, exchange and bank charges accounted for $21 million of the $35 million increase in that particular account, which amounts to an increase of 130 per cent over the previous year, has the minister checked into the matter to ascertain whether there is anything abnormal about this and, if so, is he in a position to explain it to the House? Could he also indicate when the annual report might be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture so that this whole matter may be pursued in a more thorough fashion?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have not looked for abnormalities but I am satisfied with the audited report of the Wheat Board's activities. The question of when the Wheat Board might appear before the committee with its annual report is something that I would be pleased to discuss with the members of this House.
Privilege-Mrs. Holt MULTICULTURALISM



POSSIBILITY OF CHANGE IN STATUS OF BRANCH AND INCREASE IN STAFF

Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State in charge of multicul-turalism. In view of the emphasis which the government appears to be placing on multiculturalism by the appointment of a minister, does the minister anticipate that the multiculturalism office will be raised above the level of a directorate and will there be an increase in staff?


Hon. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, no consideration has been given to that matter. It might be very helpful if the same question were asked of the Secretary of State, who no doubt is also giving consideration to that end.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, the reorganization of the department is a matter which we have under study at the present time. This is one of the questions which we will certainly examine and it is a question I am anxious to discuss with my colleague, who is proving to be very effective in the prosecution of his new duties as Minister of State responsible for multiculturalism.


Steve Eugene Paproski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, for the new minister. Has the staff of the minister's directorate prepared a reading list for him so that he can respond to questions in the House, and if so, when does he expect to be able to do so?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



PRIVILEGE


Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, as I advised yesterday, I feel impelled to rise on a question of privilege with regard to the publication of confidential documents related to a subcommittee on which I serve.
When I entered this House in 1974, I felt a great pride in being able to bring with me the depth and richness of what I considered as one of the great careers in public service, that of jouralism. I knew that in a place such as this the importance of the role of the journalist was recognized and given stature. It happened in the British House of Commons. In Westminster the press was called the "fourth estate". I always believed that, next to parliament, no group could better serve the public interest.
But as time went on I found that a small group of men and women among the 200 in the fourth estate here served, not the public, but their own interests. They fed their undeveloped egos-those few-and the need for power which in their minds must exceed that of parliament itself. There is current evi-
5362

May 6, 1977
Privilege-Mrs. Holt
dence of distortion of their personal importance when the man who stole a confidential report out of, possibly, our own lobby is a hero, and an RCMP officer in the course of his duty in furtherance of the national security is a bum. I believe that they as reporters-as I was myself-are citizens before all else.
I never saw it more clearly and with more fear-yes, fear, Mr. Speaker-than in the case that I raise as an issue now. The damage that at least two of the parliamentary press corps, the Canadian publishers and news directors of the electronic media, have done to the public interest in the crucial area of correction and the penitentiary service of Canada cannot be measured. We, in the special subcommittee of the parliamentary committee on justice and legal affairs, have worked almost non-stop as a committee through night and day, some seven days a week, because of the urgency of our task. We scrubbed all party lines because the crisis in maximum security institutions, which we sought to resolve, was so volatile and crucial that we felt it must be dealt with co-operatively without confusion of the irrelevancy of party line.
For the same reasons, we dealt circumspectly with certain witnesses, hearing the evidence of a large number of them in camera, often not even recording their names or asking their names because we feared for their safety. If their names were leaked, we knew there could be retribution to the extent of maiming, even death. We are not exaggerating; we have evidence there is this great danger. I say this to explain the seriousness of my question of privilege, the need to determine once and for all whether confidential documents of a committee hearing should be published, even if they were available. Even if they were handed to a press person, I believe there is not the right to publish.
The Globe and Mail of May 4 published a Canadian Press story, which was also carried on radio and television, purporting to describe the contents of a draft report of the subcommittee on penitentiaries. First, Mr. Speaker, the document was not a draft report, but a report on which a draft would and might be based. The distinction is important because the document contained material too sensitive to be included in a published report but which would provide to an in-camera meeting of the subcommittee a justification and background for its conclusions, if the subcommittee agreed with it.
In every sense of the word, the matter was confidential and was never meant to be published. It contained statements that the committee might decide to reject, and did in fact reject. Therefore, obviously, it should not have been published. Its publication is a breach of the right of privacy of people who appeared before the committee, and the press report presents as facts propositions which had no subcommittee endorsation.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, it was not the intention of any member to give this document to the press. We know that in some cases where leaks of draft reports occur, a member has intentionally given out a report and it is difficult to apportion blame to the press. In this case, however, a member of the committee claims that he accidentally put down his copy of the draft, and that the draft copy was clearly marked, in big
{Mrs. Holt.]
letters, "Confidential". He did not realize until later that it was missing. It should be noted that this did not happen in a public place, Mr. Speaker; it happened as the member was pursuing his duties within the parliament buildings, through the halls and lobbies in which members of the press gallery circulate freely as a necessary privilege. Surely it is an abuse of this privilege, Mr. Speaker, to collect material clearly belonging to a member of parliament, to read through information marked as confidential, and even to retain portions of it when contacted by the member who requested its return.
We all have the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, for the role of the press and its place in this institution. However, even with this in mind, I think it would be negligent of this House to dismiss lightly the actions of a particular gallery member who we can only assume "lifted" or "stole" this document. He did, in fact, brag before committee members at a reception that this was not the only confidential document which he had and had shown others. Material in those documents has been published across Canada. Not only is this unethical; it is a specific breach of privilege according to Beauchesne's citation 320(5), the last sentence of which reads:
The publication of proceedings of committees conducted with closed doors or of reports of committees before they are available to members will, however, constitute a breach of privilege.
Before citing precedent on which Your Honour can act, and before suggesting a motion, I want to emphasize two points. First, I know that even if a member has intentionally given out a copy of a draft report, the press still has no legal authority to print it, because if the rules on confidentiality are abided by there is privilege in that document. The subcommittee discussed this point thoroughly and is satisfied with the member's explanation of how the material fell into the hands of a reporter, and feels that it was unethical behaviour and an abuse of the privileges of that reporter.
Second, I do not believe the motion would result in the undesirable situation, which you have previously expressed, of one committee investigating another. What is in question is not anything to do with the actual proceedings of the committee or the activities of any of its members. Rather, it is the ability of that committee to carry out its mandate from the House without unreasonable invasion of its confidential discussions.
The authorities on the question of disclosure of proceedings in committee are clear. They stem from a resolution of the United Kingdom House of Commons of April 21, 1837, which reads as follows:
That the evidence taken by any select committee of this House and the documents presented to such committee, and which have not been reported to the House ought not to be published by any member of such committee or by any other person.
This is contained in May's nineteenth edition and Bourinot's fourth edition, pages 53-54. May's edition, at page 147, goes on to say:
The publication or disclosure of proceedings of committees conducted with closed doors or of draft reports of committees before they have been reported to the House will... constitute a breach of privilege or a contempt.
May 6, 1977

Beauchesne has been referred to previously. A leading case involving the Economist of London as recently as December 16, 1975, is worthy of note in this case. It also involves the leaking of confidential committee documents. An article in the Economist revealed the first draft report of the chairman of a select committee on wealth tax. As in this case before you, Mr. Speaker, the report was clearly marked "Confidential". The report before you also was a draft report, but not of any member of the committee. It was simply a staff compilation of evidence and thoughts we had expressed together toward determining what our report would ultimately be.
The British case recorded in the parliamentary debates of December 16, 1975, columns 1303 to 1356, dealt with the committee of privileges' judgment that two journalists were in contempt of parliament. As a penalty, the committee recommended that the parliamentary press privileges of the two individuals be suspended for six months. During that time the journalists would be allowed to come to parliament only to see their member of parliament on constituency matters.
Most members of parliament agreed that the journalists were in contempt of parliament. The three-hour debate in the British House of Commons centred on the penalty that was appropriate in the circumstances. The House regretted the leak of information, but declined to impose any penalty, even though the journalists knew they ought not to have published the information. It was stressed in that case that the basic reason for the existence of the privilege that condemns the publishing of confidential information is to ensure that parliamentarians are unhindered in their work. The select committee had been set up to study possible legislation that had not yet been introduced. The majority of the British House, in the Economist case, believed that the publication of the draft did not have any negative effect on the committee. The members acknowledged that the leak was an embarrassment.
However, in the case before you, Mr. Speaker, there could be serious repercussions and even some danger to those who gave evidence in camera. There could be ramifications which I cannot even predict, or none of us on the committee can predict, for those whose names were published as being subject to dismissal and retirement from the job. It would never have been in the public interest to publish those names.
If this motion is accepted, I hope it is not taken up by the committee until the penitentiaries subcommittee has had time to complete these confidential discussions and report back to the House. In this instance I must confirm that the material published in the Globe and Mail and elsewhere represents the following:
-publication or disclosure of proceedings of a committee conducted behind closed doors... before they have been reported to the House.
In other words, the facts I put forward here appear, on their face, prima facie on all fours with what I have just cited from May, Bourinot, Beauchesne and the Economist case. Accordingly, should Your Honour find there is a prima facie case of privilege, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Toronto-Laksshore (Mr. Robinson):
Privilege-Mrs. Holt
That the question of the publication of the in-camera proceedings of the subcommittee on penitentiaries of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs which have not been reported to the House, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Vancouv-er-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) gave the House notice yesterday of her intention to raise this question. It is obviously a very serious matter and one to which she has evidently given very thorough preparation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: It would be my intention to give hon. members and the Chair some time to reflect on the matter, particularly in view of its extreme importance; and also, at the request of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, that the matter be held in abeyance for at least enough time to allow the subcommittee to complete its deliberations. In any case, I would want some time, and I think hon. members would want some time, to prepare a possible submission in this regard. I would, therefore, propose to hold the matter under review until Tuesday, at which time hon. members might give some indication to the Chair on Monday if they intend to present any argument, and then I would attempt on Tuesday afternoon to make a determination.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I certainly concur, and I think all members would concur, with the period of reservation which you propose. I hesitate to mention this, but I think I should: Tuesday is an allotted day for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, and I do not have to tell you the problems we have encountered. I wonder if it would be possible for you to put the matter over to Wednesday?


Mr. Speaker:: That is certainly of no difficulty to me. I was thinking only that Monday was a very short period of time in order to give hon. members an opportunity to appear. I did not want to do it particularly on an allotted day. Wednesday would be quite agreeable to me. It gives hon. members more time to prepare a submission and it gives me time to prepare a decision on this matter.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mac-Eachen), might I suggest that Wednesday may present some difficulties, because time on Wednesday is immensely short. If the debate on the question of privilege is extensive, it could result in no government business being done on Wednesday. May I suggest that the position of the President of the Privy Council be preserved until Monday when he returns to the House?


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I was going to rise a few moments ago to make the very important point the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has just made.
80012-61%

May 6, 1977
Privilege-Mrs. Holt
We certainly agree to this matter being postponed. I do not see what difference it makes to the government whether we take Wednesday afternoon or Thursday afternoon away from government business. Perhaps the actual decision on this could be left to be settled by agreement on Monday on the understanding that the debate would not take place any earlier than Wednesday.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning an exchange which took place during the question period, and so allow the Solicitor General to extricate himself from the position in which he has placed himself. This matter ought to be considered in its proper context.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, if the corporal from Quebec opposite could only keep his mouth shut for a while, I know the Prime Minister would be happy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, surely I am entitled to be heard on the point of order. It arises from information given to the Solicitor General and from press reports saying that the RCMP has solicited informants in the parliamentary press gallery. The point is important to all in this House because parliament has some responsibility, I suggest, with respect to the activities of the parliamentary press gallery. As the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway has pointed out, we have responsibility for making sure that the parliamentary press gallery not only acts responsibly but is not in any way intimidated by governmental or quasi-governmental agencies or, indeed, by any particular faction in our society.
Yesterday I asked the Solicitor General if the RCMP had solicited members of the press gallery to given information about their colleagues. My question related specifically to a news article which referred to four Soviet correspondents in the parliamentary press gallery. The question was asked in that context and the Solicitor General answered it in the same context. As reported at page 5307 of Hansard, I asked the Solicitor General if Kitty McKinsey was requested to obtain or gather information over a period of time with respect to members of the parliamentary press gallery. The minister in answer spoke of the activities of the foreign press corps who are perhaps suspected of being involved in intelligence activities in Canada as being subject to inquiry by the RCMP.


An hon. Member:: He didn't say that.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Well, one can come to no conclusion except that the RCMP are attempting to obtain information about the Soviet Union members of the press gallery.


An hon. Member:: You did not read what the minister said.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, hon. members opposite want one to spell everything out specifically. I suggest that one can

come to no other conclusion if one reads the Solicitor General's answers to the line of questioning raised yesterday.


An hon. Member:: Read the questions.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, with respect, our rules do not allow members to ask hypothetical questions. I did not ask a hypothetical question. I asked a specific question about a specific incident. Today I raised a question which I felt had to be raised in order to clear the name of a responsible CBC correspondent. I was alarmed and surprised when the Secretary of State, who answers in this House for the CBC, said he was not aware of the matter I was raising. I find it incredible that the minister should not know about it. Then, having said he knew nothing about it, he alleged that I was being irresponsible. I find that strange.
Mr. Speaker, this matter becomes important when viewed in the context of current events. It has been alleged that members of the cabinet have exerted influence on the CBC. Some of them have accused the CBC of bias in its reporting. I, therefore, say we must make absolutely certain that neither the government not anybody else intimidates or tries to influence in any way our parliamentary press gallery. The Secretary of State, who seems to be abdicating his responsibilities, first said he knew nothing about the story. He then accused me of being irresponsible because I had raised a certain matter in order to clarify it and protect the persons involved. That being so, T suggest irresponsibility is to be attributed to the person who made that allegation, and not to myself.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has made a spirited defence of the question he has raised. However, obviously, it does not constitute a question of privilege.


Mr. Clarke:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point or order. With the greatest respect, sir, I appreciate your difficulties and know the care you take in allotting questions during the question period to various members of this House. The point I raise is in no way a criticism of your procedures, but it should be pointed out to Your Honour and to the House that today six members from British Columbia sat on the official opposition benches. Five of them, at least, to my knowledge,-the hon. members for Esquimalt-Saanich, Capilano, Fraser Valley East, Okanagan-Kootenay-including myself, stood in our place seeking to catch Your Honour's eye so that we might ask questions. I know that we cannot all be recognized when we wish to be.


Mr. Ouellet:: Talk to your whip.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: I hope we may appeal for assistance on occasions such as the present.


André Ouellet: You did not put your names at the top of the
list.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: After all, we have a duty to perform.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: We don't use the list system.
May 6, 1977


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: We have a duty to perform to our constituents. Today, not one member from British Columbia was recognized. At the same time, other members from the west were recognized. For example, Your Honour recognized at least four members from Alberta, one from Saskatchewan, and at least three from Manitoba. Sir, I simply ask for your assistance to represent part of an area of Canada beyond the Rockies. I am sure my colleagues agree with me.


Mr. Johnston:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I might mention that I had raised the question of citizenship in a motion proposed under Standing Order 43. However, today the hon. member for Fundy-Royal was recognized on a question which followed from that Standing Order 43 motion. The hon. member said that his question arose from the motion under Standing Order 43 which I had proposed. I think he raised the question partly because he knew that I had been endeavouring for some two weeks to ask that very question which arose from my motion under Standing Order 43.
I had tried to catch Your Honour's eye for two weeks when the Secretary of State was in the House, but failed to be recognized. Since British Columbia constituencies are far distant from Ottawa, British Columbia members consume much time in travelling. This, together with the business which must be done in our constituencies, makes it more difficult for us to be in attendance in this House every day. I suggest that it is more difficult for us to attend regularly than it is for members coming from almost any other part of the country. Therefore, we face special difficulties in raising questions in this House, and I endorse entirely the point of order raised by the B.C. federal Conservative caucus chairman. 1 realize there are separatists from central Canada and eastern Canada. We do not want to be separatists from British Columbia, but we are forced sometimes into the position of examining the role we are expected to play here.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. The difficulties with which Your Honour must cope in recognizing, during the question period, members on the government side and the opposition side have often been mentioned. Surely it would help your office if the Leader of the Opposition were to put four British Columbians on his front benches, as the Prime Minister of Canada has done on this side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Now you can go home, Basford.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A point of order was raised by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra to which some support was given by the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay. I am sure that if they will examine the record of the question period over the last few days they will realize that recognition of their party members today bore a very direct relation to the experience of a number of their colleagues who not only have
Drought Conditions
been trying to be recognized several days in succession, but many of whom are members on the government benches who traditionally have been given some priority over backbench members.
That is not always the practice of the Chair, and I do not think it should be a continuing preference; but obviously there is considerable pressure on the Chair to recognize those members who, in addition to their own regional responsibilities, which all members have, have obviously been designated in some area of the shadow cabinet responsibility in respect of general policy. Several of those members were as anxious as members from British Columbia on my left. They will realize that, when time permits, I have always been scrupulous in attempting to balance off, each day, several regions of the country, several language groups, new and old members, different languages and different subject matters, and at the same time have attempted to recognize some desire on the part of the caucus to follow up in an organized way on a subject which is of topical interest on that day. Over the space of a week I am generally able to balance that. Regrettably, I cannot always guarantee it in one forty-minute question period.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce today that the cabinet has approved a federal contingency plan to meet drought conditions in western Canada if the situation becomes serious. This plan is already in place and a committee of cabinet ministers, headed by the Minister of Agriculture, has been appointed to co-ordinate government action to carry out the plan.
The government realizes that a major drought can still be averted if rain comes to the right areas at the right time. The general rain of the past few days across most of the prairies has been a blessing. A few more like it during the months of May and June could eliminate some of the concerns about dry conditions. The Minister in charge of Multiculturalism (Mr. Guay) said he brought rain. I think that is a good idea. However, this government does not accept a "wait and see" approach to mean a "wait and do nothing" approach.
Some of the areas most seriously threatened by dry conditions received little or almost nothing of the rains which fell earlier in the week. We have drawn up a plan for immediate action in cases of severe effects of dry weather on the prairies, northwestern Ontario and British Columbia. We are also laying the groundwork for a long-term program if there should be an extended drought.

May 6, 1977
Drought Conditions
Action taken to alleviate the effects of dry conditions will be shared by the federal and provincial governments. This government is working in close consultation with the provincial governments on details of federal-provincial co-operation and cost-sharing for existing programs and any new initiatives which might be necessary if the drought situation warrants. Details of federal action and cost-sharing will be announced if and when we must relieve the effects of continued drought.
In the meantime, I am certain that the hon. members of this House will be pleased to know in general terms the main points of the government's contingency plan which will be implemented as required, in co-operation with provincial governments. There will be assistance measures to keep up the quality and supply of water in streamflow. We plan to have a deep well-drilling program in the prairie provinces to help farms and rural communities in the event of serious water shortages. If required, there will be emergency help for livestock operations. We are particularly keeping an eye on water and forage supplies for livestock, because that has been the most threatening problem up to now, as well as the protection of forests. We are prepared to assist and strengthen forest fire prevention programs as well as fire-fighting services if dry conditions should lead to unusually serious problems in the forests.
As anyone with knowledge of government programs and activities will appreciate, is is by no means the first action to be taken by the federal government to combat drought. My department has, since possibilities of a drought were raised after dry weather last summer, fall and winter, been leading the way in planning, with other responsible federal departments, ways in which a dry situation could best be coped with. Since early last fall-September, to be precise-professionals at our research stations spread right across the prairies have been monitoring conditions. On a daily basis, our information has been updated to provide a totally accurate picture of what moisture reserves have been in prairie soil. To try to plan action without this data would have been impossible.
Our agricultural weather experts in Ottawa have been using computers to predict the way in which given moisture conditions would affect summer crops and livestock this summer. Computer maps showing these predictions allow us to see, in an instant, the main trouble areas and plan to help them. Telephones at our research stations have been swamped by farmers anxious to gather first-hand, accurate information and advice. They come to my department for good reason. Farmers know we have been leading the way for decades in dry land farming techniques. They know that our advice works. They look to our experts for precise advice-and they get it.
Back in April, my deputy minister met with the deputy ministers of the departments of agriculture of the prairie provinces and reviewed the entire drought situation as it existed at that time in the west. They went over the existing federal-provincial programs and operations that were already under way. They also discussed co-operation in the contingency plan that was being formulated by this government. The provincial deputies agreed that what we had in mind was most

useful and that they could say with confidence that we were well prepared to take immediate action if required. It was also agreed at that time that the details they discussed did not need to be applied back in April. As everyone knows, it was too early then, and it is too early now to react as if a severe drought is upon us. We still have to wait and see, but as I have made clear to this House, we are not sitting idle. We are prepared to tackle a serious drought if it should arrive.
A steering committee of senior officials from the federal Department of Agriculture, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, the Department of Fisheries and the Environment, and Emergency Planning Canada will be responsible for the implementation of our contingency plan to the extent that it is required. A special task force will be stationed in Regina, Saskatchewan, to bring together officials of all the federal departments involved. This Regina group will make up our action and control centre. They will work closely with the provincial agencies on a day to day basis to implement any relief measures needed.
The committee of cabinet ministers which I have announced today will maintain an over-all direction and co-ordination of government action in this regard. The cabinet ministers on this committee, in addition to the Minister of Agriculture, are: the Minister of Transport and the minister responsible for the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang); the Minister of State (Multicultur-alism); the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Horner); the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard); the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc); the President of Treasury Board (Mr. Andras); and the Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Marchand).
That is a preliminary report. There will be more detailed information for hon. members, if they should want it. We are prepared to outline what we propose to do from week to week if conditions warrant it, through discussions with the provinces. The provincial premiers of the western provinces have met and have made an announcement that they are willing and will work with the federal committee when it is set up to work out the necessary programs as they see them. Many comments were made yesterday that because of the rain their prayers have been answered, and so on. I am prepared to say that I think it is a good idea to continue praying.


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say, first of all, that I am pleased to respond on behalf of our party and, I hope, on behalf of western agriculture on this very important statement that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has just made on the drought situation. Last night during the adjournment debate the Minister of Agriculture, in response to my remarks, announced that he would be making the statement. I appreciate the fact that he has, indeed, made it now. Once again-and this happens so often in the House- statements such as this by ministers are deliberately delayed until the eleventh hour. I want to add that once again my copy of the remarks was only received at 11.30 today. On a matter as serious as this drought issue to all Canada, especially to western Canada, this is not good enough. The drought issue must be above party politics. It must be discussed openly and
May 6, 1977

publicly by all concerned, and that includes farm producers, rural communities, provincial governments and our Canadian parliament.
This statement today is the first official comment on the drought crisis that the minister or any department has made. I would only add that it is long overdue. The drought is here, especially in the west. It is still here. The signs, to anyone able and willing to observe, were apparent three years ago. This past winter was the third successive winter drought, and it was also the most serious of the three. Soil moisture reserves have been steadily declining for well over three years. Last year's excellent growth was a miracle. It resulted from just two rains, one in June and one in August. The rains in the last two days over a big part of western Canada are very timely. I must add that they are the first of any consequence since last August. All Canadians should give thanks for this life-saving event, especially those in western Canada. The minister, quite properly, pointed out that not all of the drought areas received relief with this timely rain. I would be less than truthful if I did not point out that the southeast corner of Alberta, my constituency of Medicine Hat, received only about one-tenth of an inch.
I wish to thank the minister for this statement, even if it is late in the season and late in the day. The urgency is so great that there will be a sense of relief that the federal government has at least recognized there is a drought and that it will continue in spite of the good rain. It will take three or four feet of wet snow, or five or six inches of rain to make any surface water for stock watering on the short grass ranges of Saskatchewan and southern Alberta. Both of these possibilities are highly improbable. I emphasize, in response to the minister's first sentence that the situation is still serious, that there is no question of "if it becomes serious": it is serious.
I welcome the statement about the long-term program in the event of an extended drought. I hope it is not extended, of course, but the continental signs indicate otherwise and we should be planning accordingly. The cost-sharing statement with reference to the provinces is welcome and, I am sure, will be taken up by the provinces on the prairies. The special reference to water is also most appropriate. I hope some further detail will be forthcoming about this subject. I refer to this sentence on page 2 of the statement:
There will be assistance measures to keep up the quality and supply of water in streamflow.
The word "supply" is intriguing. What is meant by it? Does it mean an increase in supply and, if so, how will this be provided? The deep-well program will receive instant acceptance and co-operation in Alberta since they have already announced a program there. It was announced on Tuesday of this week. I am sure this will be received in the same way by the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I note the reference to "farms and rural communities". I can only assume this includes small towns now seriously short of domestic water supplies. There is some real urgency there. I ask the
Drought Conditions
minister if the "emergency help for livestock operations" refers to pipelines and pumping for stock water. These are details that should be forthcoming very shortly.
I want now to refer to a short paragraph in the statement on page 4 which reads as follows:
Our agricultural weather experts in Ottawa have been using computers to predict the way in which given moisture conditions would affect summer crops and livestock this summer. Computer maps showing these predictions allow us to see in an instant the main trouble areas, and plan to help them.
This is a commendable statement, but why not share this vital information with farmers on a nationwide scale, with all the details? Why be so secretive about it? If the information is there, and I believe it is, it is available on a continental basis. Let us hear about it and not make a political issue of it. Toward the end of his statement the minister said as appears on page 5:
As everyone knows, it was too early then and it is too early now to react as if a severe drought is upon us.
May I repeat that, Mr. Speaker.
As everyone knows, it was too early then and it is too early now to react as if a severe drought is upon us.
I say it is not too early, Mr. Speaker. I say to the minister, to this House and to the nation, read and reread the history books, especially about the dirty thirties, those ten years of dirty thirties, and remember Harry Truman's admonition, "the only thing new is history we haven't read yet." Let us hear more of the new steering committee. What is on the agenda? Have they met yet? Let us hear about it all across the nation. The task force headquartered in Regina should be a useful approach provided it is given a big green light. That includes PFRA which is able and willing to perform. But it has to be given the go-ahead now.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that there are three principal groups deeply involved in this drought emergency. The most important is the farmers themselves and that, of course, includes cattle producers. Then there are the provincial governments and, finally, the federal government. I want to suggest that farmers have already made significant sacrifices because of this draught-especially cattle producers-by reducing their herds so drastically. Also, at least some provincial governments have acted, and I am sure others will follow. The challenge now, surely, is with the federal government to show leadership and understanding. I hope that this includes a new look at a tax incentive for farmers to help them get over this extended drought period which we are heading into.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, lest anyone question my credentials for responding to this statement, may I point out that like a number of members in this House, I have a particularly valid credential in that I vividly remember what happened in this country, especially in western Canada, in the 1930s. I regret that my colleagues from agricultural constituencies are not able to be here so that one of them might respond, but I am happy to do so on behalf of my party. I join with the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) in saying that the most significant thing about this statement is that it has been made. It is significant that

May 6, 1977
Drought Conditions
the issue of the drought in western Canada is now, as it were, on the agenda of the House of Commons. I hope there will be the further reports that the minister has alluded to and that the hon. member for Medicine Hat has requested.
When this subject has come up there has been the usual banter and a certain amount of humour. Whenever the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) speaks-and that is what he does even when he reads a prepared statement-he puts in a lot that is not on the paper and we tend to pick on him for indulging in words. But I have to say there are some specifics in the statement today which we warmly welcome. We are particularly glad that there is the clear intention to continue close co-operation with the provincial governments. They are on the spot and are intimately involved. This promise of co-operation is a good sign. It is also good to learn of the extensive monitoring that this government is doing. As the previous speaker suggested, we feel that the information available about weather and conditions of rainfall, moisture, and so on, should be made freely and regularly available.
We welcome the three specific proposals contained in the body of the report although each of them is given the prefix that something will be done if necessary. As the hon. member for Medicine Hat pointed out, we should treat the drought as though it is already here. Far better to prepare for it and have it disappear than not prepare for it and have it descend upon us in all its fury and disaster.
We welcome the proposal for deep-well drilling. I do not see why that project should not be started right away. We welcome the proposals for looking after livestock, particularly getting water to them or getting the livestock to where the water is. We hope that will be acted on before a crisis arises, not when it is too late. The suggestion for close co-operation if fire-fighting becomes necessary is also welcome.
The cabinet committee sounded impressive when all those names were read off. Certainly, they represent the areas concerned. It is good to have the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) on there, not just because he comes from northwestern Ontario but because of the influence of a minister in that position. We hope that committee will not just be something that has been named so that it is on the record, but that it will be a committee that will meet. I repeat the contention of the hon. member for Medicine Hat that this subject should be brought before the House of Commons every week, not on a partisan basis but because the concern is one that all of us share.
It is a good idea to establish an action centre in Regina which is in the centre of things. All told, I am prepared to say that the statement today is welcome, as I say, mainly because it is a statement and mainly because the issue is now before us. However, there are also specifics in it that we welcome.
I have two or three questions or suggestions I should like to make. Throughout most of my lifetime references to rain-making have been greeted with laughter. However, science has accomplished a great many things in the lifetime of those of us

here. Maybe something could be done by way of seeding clouds and helping to produce rain. I am sorry there was not some reference to that in the statement. If the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) were here and making this response, he would have a good deal to say about that matter.
I should also like to put in a plea that consideration be given to the plight of small towns and small businesses in western Canada if the drought does develop. It will not only be the farmers who will suffer. In turn, the small towns will suffer and the cities as well. There may be things like financial problems for small businesses in the small towns which will come to the fore. There may be the necessity of deferring interest payments and things like that. I hope the committee that has been set up will give consideration to this.
Since it is a program that is being put together to be ready for an emergency, let us be ready for everything. If it becomes necessary to transport water from where it is to small communities-I think not only of the farming operations but of the people in the small towns-I hope the government will mobilize the tank cars that can do this job.
I have just one other comment to make. Here I join in the suggestion that this is not a partisan subject. It is good that over the years we have had enough discussion about crop insurance that there is now in place a system of crop insurance. It will be put to a pretty severe test if there is a drought, but at least it is good that it is there. Even so, the government and the cabinet committee should take a look at crop insurance and other programs to see whether they are adequate and whether anything needs to be done to improve or expand them in case the drought that is now with us becomes serious.
Like all members of this House, I join in welcoming the blessing of the rains we have had in various parts of western Canada this week. It does make a difference in our outlook. However, we would be foolish indeed if we thought that the crisis was over. On behalf of my party, I welcome the minister's statement. We look forward to other statements as this session proceeds.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I am thankful to the minister for having sent me copy of his statement in French. We feel it is very wise for his department to take all possible precautions to counter the effects of a drought in the prairies. Were this ever to happen, such a disaster would have a direct impact on all provinces. Everyone still recalls the memorable 30s, but nowadays we could cope with such a situation a lot more easily than at the time.
As everybody here knows, the province of Quebec is a large customer for the prairies, and a crisis in the prairies would necessarily have a disastrous impact on its economy. Of course we have an Emergency Measures Act, but I think we have to go farther, we have to prevent. The federal government proposes to spend all the money needed to help the prairies, and Quebec will also contribute indirectly through its taxes, and we are very happy to do so.
May 6, 1977

We are all the more interested in the prosperity of the west that, in addition to the thousands of families who left Quebec to settle there, we now find hundreds of thousands of Quebec families in the prairies where they are determined to live while they are hoping and still trusting today that their linguistic rights will be recognized. While all western premiers have unanimously rejected the idea of an economic association with Quebec, as reported in a newspaper recently, I am convinced they will gladly accept Quebec money for help. And we from Quebec are indeed very happy to respond to the appeal of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) by helping them through our tax dollars or otherwise. Besides, on rereading our history, we will find that Quebec is the only province which has given of itself unstintingly to Confederation for over 100 years. It is an appeal, made in a brotherly spirit, to the provinces to share for national unity which is threatened today.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The nature of the statement appears to be such that questioning that is usually permitted, if it is to take place, will not be very extensive. I know that the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) has a question or two following his remarks. I do not know if other members have questions. I do not have that impression. The schedule is running out. If it is just the hon. member for Medicine Hat, it might be to the convenience of members and more orderly, in the conduct of our business, to allow him to put his questions now and attempt to conclude routine proceedings before we break for lunch. I will attempt to do that, if hon. members are agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Mr. Speaker, I have two very short questions that I would like to address to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). First, I can only assume that the principal agency for the drought co-ordination would be the PFRA. That is probably the reason for the headquarters of the program being in Regina. If possible, I would like to have confirmation of that, and whether they are going to be, shall we say, turned loose as a technical arm of the federal government on this program. Second, would the minister care to enlarge on the intriguing term "supply" with respect to the stream-flow in the west?


Eugene Whelan: To answer the first question first, PFRA will be very much involved in this. They have the expertise; their people have a tremendous amount of knowledge in this field. But they will be working very closely with staff of the Department of the Environment who have prepared all the maps and who know where all the groundwater is in western Canada, the good water, the bad water, and so on.
The hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) asked about these maps. I hope I did not give the impression they were secret. We intend to make them available to members so they can see the tremendous amount of work which has been done by the various departments in putting these things to-
Drought Conditions
gether. I am not overestimating the number of hours which have been spent by our officials in preparing this material for many weeks now. If I could have done so, I would have arranged that these maps could have been put on display today. When we talk about streamflow, what we are discussing is water which moves from one city to another-that type of thing. We shall be asking cities whose waterflow has decreased tremendously to use it with the caution which is to be expected.
Severe regulations may have to be introduced in some areas to make sure that water is properly shared. This is one of the things we mean by proper streamflow. There are agreements between the provinces, but we must make sure that these agreements work-that one section does not take all the water while another, downstream, is left without water. As to the wells system, I believe the Minister of the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) explained that aspect in the House the other day in response to the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).


Mr. Mclsaac:: Mr. Speaker, my question has been partly answered by the minister's response to the hon. member for Medicine Hat. But I should like to hear the minister reaffirm that the PFRA, with its long record of activity in the western provinces, will play a leading role in this effort, rather than the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, a department which has other responsibilities in the prairies in which it is involved. I hope the minister will reaffirm the role which the director of PFRA and the entire agency will play in this ongoing program.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the minister answers, I gather the hon. member for Brandon-Souris wishes to put a brief question as well. Perhaps he would do so now.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The southwest corner of Manitoba is deeply involved in this situation because the economy of the farm community and of the small business community is closely integrated. Could the minister be more specific in indicating whether his contingency plans extend to the small business community and those in the service industries which serve the agricultural community? For example, will the Minister of State for Small Business be involved in the committee deliberations?


Eugene Whelan: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) spoke about the small business communities. This is one area which will receive priority. Some of these communities will be in dire need. In fact, they are in dire need at the present time. Reservoirs are low. The Minister of State for Small Business will be on the committee, and this will be regarded as an important aspect of the program because we realize the need to keep these people in business so that they can stay in the community. We believe that by co-ordinating all these efforts, the work of the PFRA, the environmental specialists and even the Department of National Defence-we have certain equipment they could use if circumstances warrant-will be strengthened. We are pre-
5370

May 6, 1977
Order Paper Questions
pared to put out scheduled programs week by week if conditions get worse than they are.
However, yesterday, as I said, the rain came. It did not cover the whole prairie, but who knows what tomorrow will bring? We are prepared to take action as necessary. We have a long-term program to deal with the effects of the drought, and we think it will be accepted by all the people concerned. By this I mean not only those who live on the prairies, but people in the whole of Canada, because everyone in Canada should be concerned about this situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Introduction of bills.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder whether a suggestion of mine might be accepted. The notice regarding the bill on the unemployment insurance matter is on the notice paper. This means we shall not get it until Monday. Since we are all agreed on that measure, I wonder whether two of the ministers who are here could not move and second its introduction so that it can be printed and so that we would have it on Monday.


Mr. Goodale:: That is a worthwhile suggestion, Mr. Speaker, and it would speed up matters. However, I would wish to make a couple of enquiries with regard to some technical points. Perhaps we could consider reverting to this item, by unanimous consent, later in the day, which would enable us to deal with the matter. I would be pleased to accept the hon. member's request if at all possible but, as I say, I should like a bit more time to deal with certain technical aspects.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let's do it when we come back from lunch.


Ralph Goodale: We will try.


EXCISE TAX ACT
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Finance I should like to request that in accordance with Standing Order 60(2) an order of the day be designated for consideration of notices of ways and means related to the Excise Tax Act tabled on March 31, 1977, and April 18, 1977.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 787, 1,808, 1,816, 1,819, 1,983, 2,033, 2,048, 2,057, 2,077, 2,257, 2,259, 2,282 and 2,291.


Mr. Gilbert: 1.	For each year 1968 to 1975, how many persons were employed by CMHC as (a) full-time (b) part-time (c) contract (d) temporary employees?
2.	For each of the same years, what percentage of CMHC's budget was allocated to salaries and other personnel costs?


Hon. Andr6 Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: 1 and 2.
Employees of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 1968-1975
		Number of Employees1				Salaries and Staff Benefits
Year	Regular	Part-Time	Contract	Temporary	Total	Total Budget2 3
						percent
1968	2086	7	43	-	2136	.021969	2126	7	36	-	2169	.021970	2170	8	63	-	2241	.021971	2364	12	100	-	2476	.021972	2562	22	119	-	2703	.031973	2734	40	194	-	2968	.031974	2931	51	177	-	3159	.031975	3311	53	199	-	3563	.021	As at December 31.2	Capital and Administrative Budgets, Main Estimates (grants and subsidies).


[Stage Direction]
Quest'on No. 1,808-Mr. Crosbie:
1.	Did the then Solicitor General of Canada and the Minister of Justice of Newfoundland at a joint press conference announce approximately three years ago, that a new penitentiary would be constructed in St. John's to replace the present 100 year old penitentiary and that construction would start within the next twelve months and, if so, on what date will construction commence?
[Mr. Whelan.1
2.	(a) Have all necessary studies by consultants in connection with the requirements for such a new facility been completed (b) have architects been appointed to do the necessary detailed plans and designs?
3.	Has any agreement been reached by the government and Newfoundland on the Financial contribution of each towards the capital costs of the new penitentiary and (a) if so, what is it (b) if not (i) what position has been taken by the government (ii) what percentage of the cost has the government offered to meet (iii) what are the reasons of the government for any position that may have been put forward with respect to cost-sharing?
May 6, 1977
Francis Fox: 1. A joint press release dated November 9, 1973 issued by the minister of justice for Newfoundland, Mr. Hickman, and the then Solicitor General of Canada, Mr. Allmand, made public the recommendations of a committee established in October, 1972 pursuant to an agreement between the governments of Newfoundland and Canada for the purpose of analysing and assessing the correctional services in the Province of Newfoundland. One of the recommendations of the study was the replacement of Her Majesty's Penitentiary at St. John's, Newfoundland, on a cost-sharing basis with the federal government contributing a substantial share. The press release made no mention as to when construction of a facility to replace HMP would or should start. Efforts have been underway for some time in the form of negotiations between the two governments to implement the recommendations contained in the committee's report.
2.	(a) It is expected that all consultant studies underway will be completed by the end of May, 1977. (b) No.
3.	No. (a) Not applicable. (b)(i) to (iii) The matter is still under consideration.


Mr. Epp: 1.	What are the responsibilities and duties of the Minister Without Portfolio?
2.	(a) How many people does he have on staff (b) since its creation on November 3, 1976 what are the expenditures to date of this Ministry (c) how much office space is in use by the Ministry?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: 1 and 2. (a)
See reply to question 1,316 answered February 11, 1977.
2. (b) For the period 3 November 1976 to January 31, 1977: $14,178.69. (c) One two-room office assigned by the House of Commons.


Mr. Jones: Did the Prime Minister announce on February 4, 1977 that Mr. Paul Tellier will become Deputy Secretary (Co-ordination) of the Federal-Provincial Relations Office and, if so (a) what will be his salary (b) what studies and activities will he be co-ordinating to meet the current challenges of national unity?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes. (a) $41,500-$47,000; (b) The studies and activities being conducted or to be undertaken by the departments and agencies of the Canadian government.
Order Paper Questions


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works):: 1. The
following projects have been completed or were under way in 1975/76:
Location/Description
Amos, Quebec-General Alterations to the Post Office
LaSarre, Quebec-Fitting up second floor G.C.B.
Macamic, Quebec-Improvements to electrical system G.C.B.
Val d'Or, Quebec-Ventilation and alterations to federal building
Duparquet, Quebec-Alterations to Post Office
Normetal, Quebec-Alterations to Post Office
St-Marc-de-Figuery-Installation of unit-heaters, Farm School
Amos, Quebec-General alterations to Post Office
Amos, Quebec-Interior landscaping for Canada Manpower
LaSarre, Quebec-Interior alterations for Canada Manpower
LaSarre, Quebec-General alterations to Post Office
LaSarre, Quebec-Installation of an electric sign for Canada Manpower
2. The following projects are planned for 1977-78:
Location/Description
Amos, Quebec-Alterations to air conditioning system G.C.B.
Dubuisson, Quebec-Rebuild wharf
Cadillac, Quebec-Lac Preissac-Repair wharf and ramp
Lac Hebecourt-Rapide Danseur, Quebec- Repair wharf
Lac Abitibi-Clerval, Quebec-Construct wharf and ramp
St-Felix de Dalquier, Quebec-Construct wharf
Amos, Quebec-Riviere Harricana-Paving and improvements to wharf
Project Cost


[Stage Direction]
25.000.	00
25.000.	00
4.500.00
1.175.00
Project Cost
15.000.	00
25.000.	00
25.000.	00 8,000.00
25.000.	00
25.000.	00
9,000.00
Mr. Herbert: What is the percentage increase or decrease in imports in the past ten year period in (a) actual dollars (b) constant dollars of (i) shoes (ii) TV, radio and telecommunications (iii) new automobiles (iv) clothing textiles?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada reports that: the percentage increase in imports 1976 over 1967 is as follows:


Mr. Laprise: 1.	What projects of the Department of Public Works have been completed or were under way in the Constituency of Abitibi in the fiscal year 1975-76?
2.	What projects are planned by the Department for the fiscal year 1977-78 in the Constituency?
	(a) Actual	(b) Constant
	Dollars	Dollars
(i) Shoes and boots	percent	percent
	355	156
(ii) Televisions, radios, phonographs and other telecommunication equipment	201	193(iii) Passenger cars, new	269	187(iv) Outerwear and other apparel and apparel accessories	504	240
80012-62%

May 6, 1977
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Schellenberger: What has been the cost to date of the Agricultural Services Centres Agreement with Alberta and for which projects?


Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows:
Centre	Total Cost	Canada's Share Description	Barrhead	S254.536.38	$228,681.98	For the construction of a treated water storage reservoir and related consulting Engineering fees.Coaldale	S375.805.40	$375,805.40	For the modification, improvement and extension to the water treatment plant and related consulting engineering fees.Hanna	S606,123.68	$606,123.68	For the enlargement and improvement of a surface water storage reservoir (Fox Lake).Leduc	S690.598.69	$690,598.69	For the construction of a water supply main and related consulting engineering fees.Lloydminster	S887,599.89	$800,503.71	For the construction of a raw water storage reservoir, water pumping station, modification to water treatment plant, water trunk mains and related consulting engineering fees.Redcliff	SI 60,921.32	$160,921.32	For the construction of a raw water supply main and related consulting engineering fees.St. Paul	$77,883.80	$38,054.13	Preliminary engineering work which will lead to the construction of a water storage reservoir and improvements to the water treatment plant.Taber	$1,252,396.75	$1,252,396.75	For the construction of a raw water storage reservoir, water supply pipeline, pumphouse, treated water storage reservoir, improvements to the water treatment plant, and related consulting engineering fees.Total	$4,305,865.91	$4,153,085.66	
* Canada's disbursement consists of 50 per cent contribution and 50 per cent loan.


Mr. Schellenberger: How many bushels or tons of barley and other cereal crops were used by the liquor industry in (a) 1975 (b) 1976?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Distilled Beverage Spirits and Industrial Ethyl Alcohol, Statistics Canada Catalogue No.32-021:

Corn Canadian Imported corn Barley Rye Wheat
Other cereals, flakes, grits and meals Malt barley Canadian Malt barley imported Malt other than barley
Breweries-Statistics Canada Catalogue No. 32-019
Corn Canadian Imported corn Rice Soybean Wheat
Other cereals, flakes, grits and meals Barley malt Canadian Barley malt imported Malt other than barley
January to December 1976 270,500 104.800
83,819
3,499
14,255
228
January to December 1976
21,388
31,502
21
13,647
1,304
314,787
65
January to December 1975
236,639
192,449
76,147
17,628
363
January to December 1975
31,269
31,531
1
7,129
324,821
7
Note: These are not whole cereals but are degermed. All totals in tons.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Have financial incentives been offered to the private sector to encourage the establishment of a more efficient means of producing electric power and, if so (a) what are they (b) to whom?
2.	Were requests received in 1976 for financial assistance for the establishment of more efficient means of producing electric power and, if so, what amounts were given and to whom?


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: 1. No.
2. No. However, under the ongoing Energy Research and Development Program there is support for research and development projects sponsored by the Canadian Electrical Association relating to the production, transmission, distribution and utilization of electric power. L'lnstitut de recherche en electricite au Quebec (IREQ) also receives a statutory grant of $325,000 per year until 1980 to support research in the same field.


Mr. Leggatt: In what locations in Canada are industrial facilities involved in (a) phosphate fertilizers (b) brick works (c) ceramics (d) glass fiberglass (e) hydro-fluoric acid aluminum (f) steel (g) coal generating power stations?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: (a) Following is a list of phosphate fertilizer facilities in Canada. Maritime Provinces, Belledune1, N.B., Canada Wire & Cable (Noranda Group); Quebec, Beloeil2, Canadian Industries Limited; Valleyfield1, St. Lawrence Fertilizer Ltd. (Noranda Group); Ontario, Sarnia, Canadian Industries Limited; Port Maitland, Interna-
May 6, 1977

tional Minerals and Chemicals Corp.; Manitoba, Brandon, Simplot Ltd.; Alberta, Redwater, Esso Chemicals Ltd.; Fort Saskatchewan, Sherritt Gordon Ltd.; Calgary, Western Cooperative Fertilizer Ltd.; Medicine Hat, Western Co-operative Fertilizer Ltd.; British Columbia, Kimberly, Cominco Ltd.; Trail, Cominco Ltd.
(b) There are clay brickworks at the following locations: Newfoundland: Milton, Trinity Bay; Nova Scotia: Lantz, New Glasgow; New Brunswick: Chipman; Quebec: Beauce Nord, East Angus, La Prairie, Deschaillons, Boischatel, Villeneuve; Ontario: South Gloucester, Kingsville, Burlington, Milton, Forest, St. Catharines, Elginfield, Brampton, Mississauga, Streetsville, Hamilton, Toronto, Thunder Bay; Manitoba: Lockport; Saskatchewan: Estevan; Alberta: Edmonton, Medicine Hat, Redcliff; British Columbia: Vancouver, Abbotsford, Haney, (c) There are industrial facilities producing ceramics (other than bricks) at the following locations: Nova Scotia: Lantz; New Brunswick: Chipman, Scoudouc, Sackville; Quebec: Cap-de-la-Madelaine, Arvida, La Prairie, Shawini-gan, Deschaillons, Candiac, Villeneuve, Ville-Saint-Pierre, Montreal, St. Joseph-de-Beauce, Joliette, Labelle, Ville-Saint-Laurent, Boischatel, St-Jean, St-Jerome, L'Assomption, Montmagny, Kilmar, Marelan, Lachine; Ontario: Paisley, St. Thomas, Meaford, Atwood, Dresden, Fletcher, Thedford, Napanee, Grimsby, Parkhill, Mount Brydges, Beaverton, Norwich, Arnprior, Wallenstern, Burlington, Oakville, Brantford, Brockville, Strathroy, Niagara Falls, Thorold, Hamilton, Clarkson, Owen Sound, Wallaceburg, Bramalea, Toronto, Scarborough, Southampton, Aylmer West, Kingston, Georgetown, Trenton, Whitby, Mississauga, Beamsville, Peterborough, Collingwood, Cornwall, Lindsay, Waterloo, Dundas, Downsview, Ottawa, London, Ingersoll, Streetsville, Stratford, Orillia, Cambridge, Stoney Creek, Sault Ste. Marie, Caledonia, Acton, Smithville, Kitchener, Port Robinson, Welland, Weston; Saskatchewan: Regina, Moose Jaw, Claybank; Alberta: Edmonton, Medicine Hat, Redcliff, Calgary, Lethbridge; British Columbia: Kilgard, Haney, Vancouver, Burnaby, Lav-ington, Coquitlam, Sardis, Quadra Island, Saanichton, Abbotsford, Surrey, (d) Fibreglass production facilities in Canada are located in: New Brunswick: Moncton; Quebec: Brossard, Candiac; Ontario: Guelph, Port Union, Sarnia, Weston; Alberta: Edmonton, Fort Saskatchewan, Innisfail (under construction), (e) Primary aluminum is produced in the following locations in Canada: Quebec: Arvida, Baie Comeau, Beauharnois, Isle Maligne, Shawinigan Falls; British Columbia: Kitimat. (f) Primary steel is produced in the following locations in Canada: Nova Scotia: Sydney; Quebec: Con-trecoeur, Montreal, Sorel; Ontario: L'Orignal, Whitby, Welland, Hamilton, Sault Ste. Marie; Manitoba: Selkirk; Saskatchewan: Regina; Alberta: Edmonton, Calgary; British Columbia: Vancouver, (g) The principal coal-fired thermal power stations in Canada are located as follows: Nova Scotia: Glace Bay, Trenton, Harrison Lake; New Brunswick: Chatham, Grand Lake; Ontario: Toronto, Nanticoke, Lambton, Thunder Bay; Manitoba: Selkirk, Brandon; Saskatchewan:
Order Paper Questions
Estevan, Saskatoon; Alberta: Drumheller, Wabamun, High-vale, Forestburg, Grand Cache.
1	These plants are temporarily shut down due to poor economic conditions.
2	This plant will shut down in the summer of 1977 due to lack of demand for single superphosphate.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What are the Canadian content guidelines of the Export Development Corporation?
2.	Are the Canadian content guidelines strictly adhered to or is there a provision for exceptions?
3.	Has the Corporation made an exception for the Federal Express Company of New York in its transactions with Canadair for the Learstar jet and, if so (a) what are the details (b) who was responsible for the decision and on what grounds was it made?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: In so far as Export Development Corporation is concerned: 1. EDC's policy on Canadian content is to maximize the content as much as possible in every instance.
2.	There are no exceptions from that policy.
3.	By tradition, and as a matter of commercial principle parliament has not required the corporation to give details of its activity in individual transactions.


Mr. McKenzie: Was a full page advertisement placed in Canadian newspapers by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources Office of Conservation, on Wednesday, March 30, 1977 entitled Read this page before you buy any new 77 model car. You could save hundreds of dollars and, if so, what was the total cost?


Maurice Dupras: The Department of Energy, Mines and Ressources reports as follows: Yes. Estimated total cost-$95,000.
LIP FUNDS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA Question No.2,291-Mr. McKinnon:
With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,354, has the approval phase of the Local Initiatives Programme been completed and, if so, on what date will Question No. 1,354 be given a definitive answer, in particular how much money, by constituency, was returned for allocation?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Yes, the approval phase of the 1976-77 Local Initiatives Program has now been completed, and the following constituencies had unutilized funds which were returned for re-allocation.

May 6, 1977
Improvement Loans	Amount
Constituency	Re-allocated
Burnaby-Richmond-Delta	$37,830
Burnaby-Seymour	62,010
Capilano	74,810
Coast Chilcotin	7,010
Esquimalt-Saanich	40,304
Fraser Valley East	27,745
Kamloops-Cariboo	150,000
Kootenay West	63,149
Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands	156,000
New Westminster	64,849
Prince George-Peace River	310,065
Skeena	319,462
Surrey-White Rock	5,090
Vancouver Centre	771,060
Vancouver East	541,822
Vancouver-Kingsway	230,516
Vancouver Quadra	13,140
Victoria	34,610
Total	$2,909,472


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



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, May 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Marchand (for the Minister of Finance) that Bill C-48, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Small Businesses Loans Act and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock?


An hon. Member:: One o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: The suggestion was made that the House staff might wish to take the usual hour for lunch. Would it be in order, then, to indicate that the House now stands adjourned until ten minutes past two o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore, I do now leave the chair until 2.10 p.m. this afternoon.
At 1.10 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2.10 p.m.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Just before the lunch break there was some discussion of possibly

expediting a bill relating to certain amendments to the unemployment insurance program. The difficulty is that this bill, which all members have been anxious to see, has just appeared on the notice paper. I believe there is consent, from what I gathered before lunch, to give unanimous consent to expediting progress on that bill by giving it First reading now. Even though copies of the bill may not be immediately available for members, at least I understand we could avoid one further day's delay in dealing with the legislation by proceeding with first reading now.


Walter David Baker: Speaking for the official opposition, Mr. Speaker, there is that consent. I assume the bill will be introduced and ordered to be printed. We are prepared to go along with that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, that was my suggestion, and I still agree with it.


Mr. Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, of cource I agree decision making should be hastened in that field, but I am surprised that we have not received a bill. However, I agree. Let us settle that because everything is going so slowly.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members are aware that we first need unanimous consent to revert to introduction of bills. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In reply to the question raised by the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne), I wish to point out that the first reading of a bill is specifically made to give the House the opportunity to have the bill so that it can be printed and distributed.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ENTITLEMENTS ADJUSTMENT ACT
Allan Joseph MacEachen: for leave to introduce Bill C-52, to provide for the consideration of certain unemployment insurance entitlements.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now revert to the consideration of Bill C-48, in the name of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), an act to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Small Businesses Loans Act and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.
May 6, 1977


FARM IMPROVEMENT LOANS ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Marchand (for the Minister of Finance) that Bill C-48, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Small Businesses Loans Act and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, it is not very often that I have an opportunity to lead off even the resumption of a debate on a bill on so beautiful an afternoon as this, with so fine and obviously alert an audience as we have in this chamber today. Bill C-48 is an act to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act, and Small Businesses Loans Act and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, but I would confine my remarks to the Small Businesses Loans Act section of this three-part bill.
Anyone who moves into farming these days is not likely to do so without extensive consultation as well as considerable background in that difficult industry. The road into many branches of the agricultural industry is somewhat closed off by such things as quotas without which the operation cannot begin, let alone become profitable. The same applies to the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. People do not accidentally find their way into the fisheries industry, either. If anyone who knows little about that attempts to move into that industry, he will find there are various roadblocks in the way of licences on both coasts. Thus, it is a little rare to find an amateur in fisheries.
Small business is a little different because this is an area in which people sort of find their way or stumble on occasionally. It is one of the very few places where any downward flexibility is allowed. The right of the small business person to go broke is one of the few areas in which we find prices declining or profits reduced. This brings me to one of the main problems confronting the departments involved with Bill C-48 and with small business. No matter how rapidly we pass this bill through the House, there will be too many people in small business who will not know about it and who will still not know about the Small Businesses Loans Act. I have always been surprised by the number of letters I receive from small businesses inquiring where they could raise any capital or where they could raise capital at a rate somewhat lower than the going rate charged by the banks.
These people do not know that something called the Small Businesses Loans Act exists. It has existed for some time. We are not originating in this bill, by any means. The saddest of these letters come from people who have arranged a loan with their friendly bank and have learned later that there is a Small Businesses Loans Act. They find themselves stuck with an interest rate they cannot really afford, particularly if there is a business decline in the local economic situation. Those letters
Improvement Loans
are very sad, because it is a little late to send out the pamphlet on the Small Businesses Loans Act and to direct the person to ask his banker about the act. There is a problem here of acquainting small business people with the act and its possibilities.
I would suggest to the Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Marchand), who is in the House today, that he get together with the Minister of National Revenue (Miss Begin) to find a better use for that revenue officer who seems to exist in every community and small town and who spends his time travelling around to the local arts and craft shows endeavouring to spot a craft operation that he suspects is about to become a business.
He notifies those people that the Department of National Revenue is very interested in their 12'A per cent. I have seen that in operation. I know the concern of craftsmen. Because the revenue officer is not terribly artistic but is very, very crafty, he decides it is not art and has gone beyond small handicrafts. Then there is a request for an order to register as a manufacturer. I would urge the Minister of State for Small Business to see that the various other branches of government which are involved with the handicraft industry proceed with a thorough reform of that industry's taxation problem.
That is an area which needs a great deal of attention. If that person who has been ticked off to do that rather odious job can be directed up and down the street to small businesses handing out the informational leaflet on the Small Businesses Loans Act, I believe the effect, even in terms of revenue for the government through better and larger small businesses, would pay off more than the other activity which seems to be nationwide. I know it has happened here in Ottawa and in the Okanagan as well. We know the virtual harassment that has gone on concerning small business over the years. It is an harassment which the minister has announced he plans to end.
Rather than some of the mailings that go out demanding statistical information, there might as well be some informational mailings on something like the Small Businesses Loans Act so that these people know and are reminded annually that this act exists and what its provisions are. But that will not be enough. Over and above that, there will have to be warnings to the banks. The situation where the small businessman goes to the bank manager and asks for a loan and is not told about the act is absolutely intolerable. As long as small business loans are being handled through the banks, it seems to me there is an onus on the loan officer, the bank manager or whomever to make the possibility known to those who inquire.
Ten years ago I sat through the decennial revision of the Bank of Canada Act, and sat through hours and hours of presentation on the part of the banking society of this country in regard to the terrible fate that would befall the banks if we did not raise the interest rate and did not free it from the 6 per cent limitation that it had at that time. Thus, it was freed. Everyone knows some of the results. Since then, in every major city of this country the banks have found banking sufficiently profitable to raise those glorious erections in a sense, I suppose, to male chauvinism, because there has been a marvellous

May 6, 1977
Improvement Loans
game of "can you top this" played in every major metropolis of this nation as the banks' towers have risen time after time. They are distinguished only by their size, height and the total sterility of the architectural design of almost every one of them.


Mr. Brisco:: That includes the Bank of Canada.


Ralph Goodale: Touche!


Howard Earl Johnston: The freeing of the interest rate has caused foreign investment to grow in Canada at a rate that was not dreamed of ten years ago-foreign investment from a country beleaguered by the threat of communist takeover or beleaguered by the end of colonial status. It is the kind of money that flees and finds its way into major Canadian metropolises. I hope the government finally stops postponing the decennial re-examination of the Bank Act and we reach a point where we do not pass and repass that little bill extending the terms of the existing act.
When members of the banking fraternity appear before the finance committee of this House, I hope people will ask questions about the policy of the banks. They have advertised excessively their profitability in metropolises, but at the same time have had the nerve to deny loans to small business. Bankers know that employees in smaller branches have not even told small businessmen applying for loans of the existence of the Small Businesses Loans Act.
I hope the tourist industry will benefit from the higher small business loans ceiling. I understand that the industry is starved of capital, especially, in British Columbia. Time and again the programs we have put in place for providing financing to industry have failed to be of benefit to the tourist industry. One finds in British Columbia small and aging hotels and motels, badly in need of reorganization, refinancing and repair. They have been taxed at levels far greater than those appropriate to their revenues, at levels which bear more relationship to possibilities of speculative sale than to operational capabilities. I know the Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Marchand) has promised to co-ordinate government services available to small business, and to turn around the government's attitude with respect to small business; for in the past it has seen small business as a source of revenue, as something to be bled and drained for the purposes of increasingly large government.
I know the government recognizes the initiative the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) took in appointing a small business critic, for it appointed a minister of small business. And that is not the only initiative borrowed from the Leader of the Opposition. The government has brought borrowing down to a fine art. We saw the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on the prairies quoting Wallace Stegner because the Leader of the Opposition had quoted Wallace Stegner. We now have a minister of small business, because the Leader of the Opposition thought of it first. We have a minister of sport, as well, because the Leader of the Opposition thought of that first, too.

The day will come when this country's people will realize that our forward thrusts, ideas and initiatives come from the Conservative party, through its leader in this House.


An hon. Member:: Which leader?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: The government also resurrected multicultur-alism because it will call an election in one year.


Howard Earl Johnston: Hon. members opposite may be confused about leadership. I gather that their latest acquisition does not sit well on that side of the House. I know there is confusion in the ranks opposite. We hear a great deal about the possibility of the former minister of finance returning, and I am therefore pleased to hear hon. members opposite asking rhetorical questions. I suggest this will not be the last time hon. members opposite will ask such questions.
Our businesses in British Columbia need capital, as the minister is aware. I hope he will confer on this matter with the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard), for DREE money has not been available to small business in British Columbia for some time. It was not available to any significant extent even when there were two areas designated, the Okanagan and, eventually, the Kootenays. Even then it was next to impossible to wring money out of that department for business in British Columbia.
I do not place all blame on the federal government, but it must assume some of the blame for establishing the criteria under which money is made available to small business. Because of those criteria, significant amounts of money have failed to reach businesses in British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, small businessmen in British Columbia were forced to go to the market to borrow, whereas businesses in every other province could go to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion for grants. There is a world of difference in today's business climate between a grant and a loan, even a loan secured under the rate of interest permitted by the Small Businesses Loans Act. If many small businesses in British Columbia had been able to secure a grant of even $50,000, as opposed to a loan of similar size under the Small Businesses Loans Act, they would not have faced the difficulties they experienced in the last few years.
I notice, too, that the bill increases gross revenue to $1.5 million. That may seem a large amount, but I suggest in today's business climate, with present day inflation, that amount is not overly significant. After all, the government has not succeeded in bringing inflation under control, let alone wrestling it to the ground. In its approach to the anti-inflation program, the government has been clumsy. In its attempts to control inflation, it has been hesitant.
There are too many exceptions to the program. Therefore, how can the government's attempts to fight inflation do anything worth-while? So, despite all the controls, inflation goes on, inflation continues. Probably controls have only been effective in limiting profits of some small businesses and remunera-
May 6, 1977

tions paid in certain selective industries in this country. Gross revenues are to be increased to $1.5 million, but I doubt if the proprietor of a small business will be able to take from the business much for himself. Once he has replaced his stock, paid his staff salaries and paid to governments moneys he is forced to pay, moneys used to finance schemes of compensation, insurance, and so on, little is left for himself. I sometimes think the more highly-paid staff members of a business take more out of the business than the owner does himself, or his partners do if they are family partners in the business.
Today, our small businesses operate in an uncertain world. Small businesses in the remote regions of this country find it next to impossible to accumulate capital. So even though we are providing for increased lending ceilings, I suspect that once the bill passes we shall have provided too little, too late. We shall not really help small business until the government seriously comes to grips with inflation, the foremost problem which this nation faces.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on this legislation.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: British
Columbia members are doing well in being recognized this afternoon.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, British Columbia members always do well. I congratulate the Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Marchand) for piloting through this House the first significant piece of legislation introduced since his appointment relating to his responsibilities.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Actually, it is in the name of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald).


Robert Hylton Brisco: It is a proud moment, as well, for the members of the opposition who presented the thoughts that the minister has so sensibly followed. I can recall back in March of this year when the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek), in a private member's motion, on March 28 said:
That in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of implementing programs to assist the development of small business in this country, consisting of such positive initiatives as (a) allowing tax credits for investment in small business, (b) providing assistance in the formation of small business export consortia, (c) changing government tender practices so that small business supplies a portion of government purchased goods and services, (d) reducing the government paperwork burden imposed on small business.
Perhaps as a result of the debate that followed that day, the most significant comments, at least in the context of the bill before us today, are the remarks of the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington). That Conservative member said, as recorded at page 4398 of Hansard:
I also think that after having gone through an era of a very high rate of inflation the amount of the loan, $50,000 should be increased to at least $75,000 and perhaps even to $100,000. Perhaps also that could come up for annual review.
Improvement Loans
It is, indeed, more than a coincidence that the increase in the Small Businesses Loans Act is $75,000, up from $50,000. The hon. member for Capilano went on to say:
In view of the inflation we have been through, and if the Minister of State (Small Business) (Mr. Marchand) is recommending changes to the Small Businesses Loans Act, perhaps we should give consideration to increasing the gross volume of business for firms qualifying under that act. I suggest that we look at something in the order of $1.5 million.
How significant is it that that is precisely the figure that has been set under the amendments to the Small Businesses Loans Act? I think it is also significant that the same evening, if my memory serves me right, or at least within hours of the debate introduced by the Conservative critic for small business, the Minister of State for Small Business gave us an indication that that would be the thrust of the act before us today. I must say that I cannot remember a government responding more quickly to another initiative than in that case, so of course the minister is to be commended for taking something from the opposition which is of value, certainly not an unusual case in that the contributions made by opposition members are frequently of value, but most unusual in that the government side of the House actually recognized the fact.
In presenting this bill, which makes changes affecting the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Small Businesses Loans Act and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, there are a number of businessmen who will be materially affected. These acts will, of course, also affect businessmen in the future. If one is frustrated, as has just been described by the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston), and informs his constituents that there is, indeed, an IBDB, as there was an FBDB, then the minister will recognize that his department has extensive public relations work to do. I recognize the frustration that the minister probably experiences when he asks, "Why don't people know about this?" It is the same frustration, I suppose, that members on both sides of the House experience when suddenly confronted with the unfortunate constituent who is perhaps three or four months' late in making an application for his pension under the Canada Pension Plan and who, by virtue of his delayed application, may be out of pocket.
One would think that all Canadians are familiar with those programs which most closely affect them. The fact remains that sometimes these business opportunities for the small entrepreneurs happen very quickly and they are presented with an opportunity which they want to seize. In the past they might not have had the opportunity or, indeed, the necessity, to get themselves informed about the FBDB. I know that the FBDB, through their officers, makes an effort to speak to service clubs, to hold seminars in various communities, and to make its presence known it advertises in our national newspapers.
Quite frankly, I am at a loss to make specific recommendations to the minister as to how better to provide information to the public, to those who may wish to use the services of FBDB, except to say that I think that in terms of speaking to service clubs he is preaching to people who are already well aware of the benefits or the disadvantages of doing business with

May 6, 1977
Improvement Loans
FBDB. I can think of more than one occasion when an application to the Federal Business Development Bank has been met with nothing but obfuscation, delays, woolly-headed thinking and frustrations inflicted upon the applicant which have finally turned the applicant away from that source of funding and given him into the arms of some other source of Financing, frequently at a much higher interest rate.
As I indicated previously, sometimes the entrepreneurial possibilities are presented very quickly and must be seized very quickly. I recognize that the various departments and ministries try, and I think that in many cases they try very hard, but it only takes one or two people within the framework of a particular office to cause serious dislocation of the processing of these applications. One of the most serious dislocations is with reference to DREE in Kootenay West which was, quite frankly, a disaster. It consisted of the failure to advise, the failure to say to the entrepreneur, "Look, you will be over your head"; the failure to strike a reasonable balance in degree, in the amount of equity that is taken up by the bank in order to fund the industry, and elevation of expectations and hopes and, finally, the crash and the ultimate closure of the business. The businessman himself, of course, is out of pocket, faced with receivership. The new employees who have been working at this new business opportunity, this new enterprise, for some five or six months, or perhaps a year or two, are out of a job, with no place to go.
[DOT] (M50)
I recall very well the input of DREE in Kootenay West. How very pleased we were to see that riding included under the Regional Development Incentives Act, and how frustrated we were to find that in the entire period in which that riding was recognized under the act there was not a single, solitary reference to it of any business opportunity by DREE. In my view, the DREE officials totally failed to perceive what their authority and options were. They let down the people of Kootenay West very badly. They failed to realize that the area did not have the expertise to go into the marketplace and secure people to come in and establish an industry. DREE certainly had that expertise. If they did not, it was clearly in their mandate to have it. Mr. Speaker, it is no wonder that small business, the employer of over 50 per cent of the work force, is in serious difficulties today?
I can remember when several people in my community of Trail and the surrounding area put their life savings into an enterprise funded by DREE and supported by FDBD which had the blessing of federal departments including Industry, Trade and Commerce. The one thing they all failed to do in the very critical period of start-up which can last one, two or three years, was to monitor the operation and make sure it was proceeding well. They failed to make sure that the management knew what it was doing. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that if the federal government is going to get into this field, they had better be prepared to shoulder part of the responsibility. If DREE or FBDB are going to put taxpayers' money into business ventures, they had better make sure that even though

the investment may appear sound at first blush, it remains sound on the basis of management.
We cannot hold the minister of the department responsible for fluctuations in the market or for various market pressures. I do not suggest that, but I do suggest that one of the most serious shortcomings of DREE, FDBD and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is their failure to follow up with the necessary expertise. If these departments have the expertise, they are not using it. I recognize it is not a simple thing to go into the marketplace and find an expert in private enterprise, but I suggest it will pay maximum dividends and result in fewer bankruptcies, as well as a better overseas market if this expertise can be provided.
Not too long ago I had a visit from a constituent just returned from Iran and other Middle East countries where he had done an excellent job of selling a Canadian product. This was under the auspices of the Department of Regional Development in British Columbia. At one time he had the opportunity to consult with the federal counterpart, but had he taken the advice proffered by the official in Ottawa-who had never seen the Red Sea or the Suez Canal, and probably would not know how to find them on a map-the trip would have been almost disastrous. The official's direct knowledge of the business community in the Middle East was nil.
When looking at the small business community I note with serious concern that while the Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Marchand) is making a genuine and sincere effort to improve the options for free enterprise for small business, on the other hand the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) and some hidden geniuses in the backroom have decided that they are going to scrap some programs and introduce new ones as the answer to the problems of the business community, meaning those who are one notch above the small businessman. I have spoken to some members of the business community who have looked at these proposals, and they just shake their heads in frustration. They say that in order to qualify, you would need an army of lawyers and accountants to fill out all the required forms. If your company has access to corporate lawyers and accountants, then it is too big to qualify for the loan. If it does not have those experts at hand, it is too small. So, where is this program going to fit in? In all likelihood, this new brain-child of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce will be busy funding the brain-children of other federal departments. They are the only ones who could fill out all the forms. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that someone had better have a chat with the well-meaning Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and let him know what the business community feels about this program.
A few days ago, in a well meaning exercise, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce sent an official to British Columbia. He turned up in my riding. When I read the press release announcing his arrival, I thought it was the coming of the Messiah. But I was wrong. The business leaders of the community left the room at 15-minute intervals on any excuse they could think of. As I understand it, when the meeting
May 6, 1977

concluded there was only the official and one poor victim left-and it was his office that was being used for the meeting. The businessman did not know why he was there, nor did the official. What a waste of the taxpayers' money.
I think it is necessary to reinforce the comments of the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston), Mr. Speaker. I remember being in this House when members of the government hooted and jeered at the announcement that the hon. member for High Park-Huptber Valley (Mr. Jelinek) had been appointed "critic of nothing"-because there was nothing in the way of small business on the other side. The same thing happened when it was announced that a Conservative had been appointed critic of fitness and amateur sport. They said, "We do not have any fitness or amateur sport." Of course, all we were doing was planting an idea with the government-as we frequently do-which they subsequently acted upon.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Can you say
that with a straight face?


Robert Hylton Brisco: I have no difficulty saying it with a straight face, Mr. Speaker. I think I am more conversant with the fact than is the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne). I was present in the House on that occasion.
I also recall that the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley, our critic for small business travelled this country from shore to shore. He spoke with small businessmen in a variety of communities across Canada including the home of our present minister, the city of Castlegar, winding up this tour examining the concerns of small business at a business conference in Washington, D.C. This has been alluded to before in the House, and I do it in part in jest. The present Minister of State (Small Business) preceded his tour with a trip to Russia, hopefully not to examine small business there. That joke has been used before and I will not inflict it upon the minister again.
There is one other frustration of small business of which I am sure the minister is aware, that is, the enormous weight of municipal, provincial and federal legislation inflicted upon these people at every level of government and involving half a dozen departments or ministries. It is going to involve Revenue. It may involve Industry, Trade and Commerce. It will in all likelihood involve the Ministry of Small Business and may well involve the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald). Depending upon the product being introduced, it may well involve the Ministry of the Environment, Fisheries and Forestry. We are faced with a vast gamut of federal responsibility.
Not too long ago a constituent forwarded me a form from StatsCan. It involved a fellow in my constituency who had one small tugboat and was moving a few booms around. They wanted a report on how much diesel oil he consumed, how many employees he had, how much overtime there was, and on and on ad infinitum and ad nauseam. In order to fill out the form he required the services of a chartered accountant. That
Improvement Loans
is how much detailed information was requested. He said, "Why the hell should I pay for a chartered accountant-"


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Hey, hey, Ray Hnatyshyn will fix you!


Robert Hylton Brisco: Oh no, he won't.
He said, "Why should I have to pay for a chartered accountant in order to get this information for StatsCan? If they want it badly enough, let them send out their own chartered accountant to do the job."


Mr. Forrestall:: You should know that he is quoting a frustrated businessman and not himself using an expletive.


Robert Hylton Brisco: I thank the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) for his interjection.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: It takes two of them over there to make one speech.


Walter David Baker: And if you had ten, you still would not understand it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) has the floor. If other members wish to participate in the debate, they should address their remarks to the Chair at the proper time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate your intervention and interjection. It was most timely. The real reason why there is a failure to address the Chair is that members opposite fear that the quality of their interjections is such that they would not be recognized by the Chair.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: The Chairman would.


Robert Hylton Brisco: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I am having difficulty putting up with the inane comments of the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi. If he can contain himself long enough, I would be pleased to assist him privately in his education. Clearly he is lacking in knowledge and needs some help. I will help him after I conclude my address.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: It is a point of principle.


John Gilbert: He has lost his principles.


Robert Hylton Brisco: He never had any.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member would not want to leave on the record the statement he just made. He is not that kind of member who wishes to reflect on the integrity of other people. I am sure that he would rather withdraw the remark he just made and leave it there.

May 6, 1977
Improvement Loans


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. At that point I was in conversation with another hon. member and did not hear the hon. member's remarks. I am sure that if the remarks of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) were unparliamentary or not customary to the language of the House, he will withdraw them if they were offensive. I did not hear them. Before I make a ruling on that, I will have to wait until Hansard is out tomorrow.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have no idea why there was an interjection from the other side. I am sorry the hon. member has an expression of concern. I realize there were some exchanges across the floor.
I would like to emphasize to the Minister of State for Small Business that not only are we concerned with the weight and volume and interjection of so many departments and ministries within the federal government, but we are also concerned with those same interventions by counterpart departments within provincial governments. As was indicated by the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay, we are faced with what amounts to harassment not only by provincial tax officials but by federal tax officials.
Recently one of my constituents, a gentleman of some 80 years of age, returned from a trip to Spokane, Washington, where he had occasion to see a dentist and get his dentures relined or something of that nature. He spent the enormous sum of approximately $2.85 in Spokane, Washington, all that he could afford as a pensioner. When he returned to Rossland, British Columbia, it was not too long before someone from the provincial tax department contacted him with regard to his heavy purchases in Spokane, Washington, and asked for the provincial government's 5 per cent.
I cannot think of anything more objectionable than some tax hound going after an 80 year old senior citizen to get his 5 per cent or 7 per cent pound of flesh on a $2.85 purchase. That provincial tax hound must have obtained his information from some federal counterpart. How else would he have known about it? He must have obtained the information through either Customs or Immigration. I am not pointing the finger at any one Customs officer or any one border crossing, but I have to conclude that he obtained it from someone in authority. This kind of irritant to a pensioner is only an example of the irritants that are multiplied by 100 times for small businessmen.
The minister has indicated that he is genuinely and seriously concerned about cutting through the weight of bureaucratic material that flocks into the offices of small businesses. I hope he will address himself to that particular concern.
There is one other area that I hope the minister will also consider. I hope that within the FBDB in each province there will be somebody with that degree of imagination and business perception that when someone approaches them with an idea they want to put into production or go ahead with, they will be of some assistance. Someone may approach them saying, "I know this thing will fly, but I do not know where to go from here." That person is not likely to get the extra help he needs

from FBDB, nor is he likely to get it from any government source. The most sensible response in British Columbia is likely to come from the B.C. department of economic development.
I think the B.C. Development Corporation has been doing a commendable job. The minister could do worse than consult in depth with them regarding treatment of the interesting and imaginative schemes, some of which offer great possibilities and will fly, but still need direction. If the hon. gentleman would take it upon himself to see that there are imaginative people engaged in this process, there might be a prospect of putting more small business men into the community and employing more Canadians.
A final frustration I would direct to the minister is the frustration I see with reference to the establishment of FBDB offices where these applications are handled. I noticed last summer with considerable concern and alarm that an FBDB office had been established in the city of Williams Lake. I am sure it is very good for the community, but I notice there is no such office at Trail, Castlegar, in Nelson or, to my knowledge, in Fernie. That whole territory is covered out of the Cranbrook office. If the Cranbrook office is of the view that it can handle both the east and the west Kootenays, I wonder why it was considered necessary to put a small business office in Williams Lake, less than 100 miles south of Prince George. I wonder why the government has failed to reply to questions which I placed on the order paper with regard to the establishment of that office.
I wonder why it is that the FBDB picked a location in downtown Williams Lake which was a prime economic and trading value, the best spot in town. The old building had been destroyed by fire. Somebody put up a new building and the FBDB moved in after spending I don't know how many thousands of dollars upon changes. I do not know why the department has failed to answer my questions asking why the contracts for furniture, carpeting and so on, were made with people far removed from the community. There was no one in Williams Lake who sold an office desk or a typewriter.
How many people are working at Williams Lake? How is it that Williams Lake now requires a storefront operation in a prime location as opposed, say, to working from a second floor office? Why was no reference made to the banks in that community which have a better awareness of the requirements of small businessmen than does FBDB?
How many applications which originated in Williams Lake were processed in 1975? How many were accepted and how many were rejected? I should like to know what criteria were utilized to determine the need to open an office at Williams Lake. I should like to know how many employees are presently on the pay-roll there, and how many applications were processed in 1976 by the Williams Lake office. How many applications have been processed since the office was opened? I should like to know how much these operations cost, and 1
May 6, 1977

should like to know who pays for them. Is it the long suffering taxpayer?
I should also like to know which company provided the furnishings for the office, and the location of this company. What was the total value of such furnishings? Were bids ever called within the community of Williams Lake for the provision of such furnishings? I very much doubt that they were.
In addressing these questions to the minister today I must put on record the response I had to my earlier inquiry directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It is a classic example of government secretiveness:
It has not been the practice nor is it considered appropriate to ask questions which relate to the direction and management of the Federal Business Development Bank. By its act of incorporation, responsibility for the direction and management of the business of the Bank rests with the Board of Directors.
Mr. Speaker, it is time this responsibility rested, at least in part, with members of parliament, and I urge the minister to assure the House that something will be done about this situation so that the FBDB can answer to parliament directly.


Mr. Harquail:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, during the course of the debate this afternoon the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) had an interesting exchange with the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne). Your Honour advised the House that you did not hear the exchange. The remarks had something to do with education, and the hon. member for Kootenay West suggested he could assist the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi in that regard. Someone mentioned being a principal of a school, and the hon. member for Kootenay West said the hon. member had no principles, and he did not withdraw that remark.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. I well understand the reason the hon. member is seeking the floor on a point of order. This would be a question of privilege but it is certainly not a point of order. I have to recognize the hon. member for Palliser.


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all I should like to congratulate the minister who is piloting this bill through the House. It is the first opportunity I have had to congratulate him on his appointment. I should like to encourage him in the task he has undertaken and in his efforts to make life a little more pleasant, efficient, and profitable for the small businessman who definitely needs a lot of help these days.
I am only sorry that the bill we are discussing is really not meant to add very much in the way of assistance. It is merely a measure to continue a program which was started back in 1961. It was a step forward at that time but circumstances have certainly changed a great deal since then and the present legislation, even though it is being continued, is not sufficient to resolve the problems which small businesses face.
Improvement Loans
Basically this piece of legislation does four things. It increases the size of loans by 50 per cent; it extends the life of the legislation for another three years; it adds about $400 million to the government's responsibility for guarantees; and it increases the eligibility of businesses for assistance by 50 per cent in terms of size. I suppose that the acts are being brought up to date bearing in mind inflation which has occurred since the acts were first passed, so there is not really much advance. Certainly the legislation does not meet the basic needs of businessmen, farmers, and fishermen in this country today. It is in the nature of a band-aid approach to problems which are strangling small business and farmers with bureaucratic and other forms of red tape, about which we heard from the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) and the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston) this afternoon.
Business from coast to coast faces similar problems, and this is one area of unification which has not been seriously considered by the government. If handled properly, the solution to these problems and the promotion of the importance and strength of small business and the free enterprise system on which Canada was founded could, and would do much to help disarm many disunifying forces in our country today. I suggest that this is one issue which is apolitical, above language or cultural disharmony, one which should receive continued and appropriate assistance from a federal body truly committed to the building of the nation.
The present government and its predecessor rushed recklessly to protect and to reinforce the viability of large central corporations. The United States and West Germany are examples of the converse situation, where attention has been given to small business by the central government, with a beneficial effect on their economies. As an example of what this government has done recently in this connection, let me cite the case of Flextrac-Nodwell of Calgary. This company was acquired by Canadair before the federal government took over Cana-dair, and recently it was decided that Canadair should spin off this operation, which manufactures track vehicles.
For some months, Mr. Speaker, I tried to obtain information from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce about the government's intentions, but received none. However, after the fact it was learned that the government had decided to dispose of that operation to its competitor, the Foremost Company, which also makes track vehicles, notwithstanding the fact that I had put the government on notice that other people were interested in making a bid for that business. When I asked why the government had taken this step, I was told it was because the competitive situation in track vehicles was too keen.
What the government did in this case, in effect, was to promote a monopoly, since the only major manufacturer of track vehicles now is the Foremost Company. In his reply to me the minister said that perhaps the Bombardier Company could be considered a competitor. However, I do not think ski-doos are in the same category as track vehicles which carry oil exploration equipment in the north.

May 6, 1977
Improvement Loans
I suggest that the actions of the government have been in the direction of building bigness at the expense of small, efficient operations. This poses a real challenge to the Minister of State (Small Business) (Mr. Marchand) to assist in reversing the trend, which has pretty well entrenched itself as a philosophy in the minds of the present government.
There is no doubt in my mind that the challenge and competition created by free enterprise through smaller and medium size businesses can serve only to revitalize the economy and to stimulate employment. This is where we should look for growth in order to solve our unemployment problems.
The irony of it is, Mr. Speaker, that small endeavours account for between 50 and 60 per cent of our employment opportunities in this country, yet they do not come in for anything close to 50 per cent consideration when controls, quotas, and tariffs are levied. Small firms go bankrupt without any sympathy on the part of the government, and with them goes an equal percentage of the number of jobs available, with a corresponding drain on the resources of the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
We have seen several examples of service and band-aid assistance as a result of travel throughout Canada by various ministers of the government who try to show some concern for the problems faced by small business. I suggest that this type of legislation is confirmation that there is no really serious concern being shown by the government; rather it indicates a continuation of the band-aid approach. We have all witnessed the fiasco of programs under DREE, ARDA, the so-called tourism program, none of which has had the long-range effect necessary to create and to stimulate employment in the private sector of our economy.
A namesake of mine, Ernst Schumacher, a British economist, pointed out some years ago in his book "Small is Beautiful" that bigness is really madness. His argument was based on the fact that we need to grow not outwards but inwards, to business of a size where everything relates, towards "technology with a human face". John Bulloch, president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Businessmen, added to this premise by stating that small is more efficient, more profitable and real, and is based on the healthy outlook of competitive free enterprise.
Big business, in my opinion, leads to big government and to big labour unions. How do smaller enterprises faced with falling markets, union imposed wages, taxation and other pressures on their cost of doing business in this country as a result of government action, compete? The government should be working to introduce laws to provide small enterprises with the same advantages enjoyed by the conglomerates, laws which would help equalize competitive opportunities in purchasing, services and exports, with greater tax incentives not only to the businesses themselves but to investors. By allowing the large enterprises the heavy end of the stick we are allowing a situation to develop which will make it impossible to function democratically in this country, certainly if the trend toward bigness continues. We will become overrun with bureaucrats and centralization.

Pollution is created by massing large numbers of people into central areas. This government has moved toward this at a steady pace. Small centres and rural developments are consistently undermined. One need only look, for instance, at the number of small post offices which were at one time the hub of a community environment and communications centre-in other words, gathering places. They are no more now as individuals move more and more into cities and into built up, congested areas. If one lives in a smaller community, even in the matter of unemployment insurance benefits one is discriminated against, since the regulations require one to apply to a specific number of companies per week for employment. Unless this is done you are automatically disqualified, so you have to move to the nearest city to conduct a search for employment. Farmers cannot keep their families on the farm, and who can blame young people for moving to places where there is less stress, less risk of failure, less pressure from form filling, regulations, and other government interference? Eventually what will happen to Canada is that the trend will not only be allowed but encouraged by the federal government.
It pains me to mention that even before the election of the Parti Quebecois the federal government allowed a situation to develop where provincial boundaries became barriers so far as trade was concerned. Contracts for work in Quebec and in the rest of Canada were open to Quebec firms; but the same rule did not exist for other provinces wishing contracts for work within the province of Quebec. Construction workers required work permits to work in Quebec if they were not Quebecers; but Quebecers could work in other provinces of Canada without permits. The provinces of Alberta and British Columbia have suffered particularly in the awarding of government contracts, the facts of which were clearly illustrated by my colleague, the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), in his speech on this bill on March 28.
It is perhaps the hallmark of those on the other side of this House when they mention positive steps taken by the government, that they speak in terms of percentages and statistics. This proves to me that they have lost touch and sight in regard to people, and perhaps points out that they regard the inequities of the system as small when they are applied to small businesses. This is just not so. The businesses may be small, but the problems are enormous.
To go back to the Post Office as an example, my constituency is partly rural with the problems already mentioned of closures and inept deliveries; but part of my riding is also in the city of Calgary where people living in residential areas do not receive proper mail service at all. This situation has been going on for over three years. All representations to a succession of Postmasters General have resulted in no viable improvement in spite of the multimillion dollar new facility which has been constructed in the city of Calgary.
Smaller post offices are manned by dedicated people providing a service at ridiculously low rates of pay. Rural route contractors are in the same position, and have been for years.
May 6, 1977

These are certainly areas of small business where the government can and should take action if it is interested in people rather than statistics.
Everywhere the small businessman and the farmer turn they are faced with high prices, high interest rates, and high taxes. This bill is tokenism only, and it will not correct a longstanding disgraceful neglect of the actual needs of these people. It is also shocking that it will automatically expire in another three years. The people involved as potential beneficiaries under this legislation should have the assurance that it is something of a permanent nature. The government should show some commitment to this part of the business population by making it permanent. It should have a provision for some type of regular review, but it should not be temporary legislation.
The basic problem with this legislation-and I implore the minister to do something about it by way of amendment at committee stage-is that which was pointed out by my friend from Okanagan-Kootenay who said these measures are unknown to the people. They are unknown because they are unused. The reason they are unused is because the system of guarantees does not allow the lending institutions to use the bill.
The system of having a fixed interest rate with a federal guarantee is not appropriate. This interest rate should be flexible in nature, so that as government changes the effective interest rate in the country the bill could be useful at all times. As it stands now, it is only when interest rates are extremely low that lending institutions cannot afford to lend money. They may not be low because in the last five, six or seven years we have had high interest rates compared to what they were 10 or fifteen years ago. They cannot lend money because the interest rate does not allow them to recover the cost of the money they are lending.
The only people who can benefit from this legislation are those in the very upper limits of size who can still qualify. In those cases, lending institutions can put together a package that would be profitable to them. Part of the loan could be under a demand situation at prime plus something, and part of it could be under this. While they might lose money on what they lend on this, they will make it up on the rest. For those who are small and who are depending entirely on this legislation, they just do not have a hope of obtaining any money.
No credit union, bank or any other lending institution under this legislation can afford to lend strictly on the basis of this bill. The government in its own direct lending programs-the Federal Business Development Bank and the Farm Credit Corporation-has higher interest rates than the rate allowed under this legislation. Serious consideration should be given to allowing a floating interest rate so that people who are potential beneficiaries under this legislation would actually have something they could use. They should have, for example, prime plus one as the interest rate. Then the government guarantee will help make up for the loss in the interest rate. That was the original intention. There was a lower interest rate in this legislation because of the government guarantee.
Improvement Loans
The guarantee cannot be worth enough to persuade lenders to lend for less than they have to pay for the money themselves.
The minister should give some sort of consideration at committee to bringing some relief in that regard. As it stands now, it does not matter whether the lending limits are increased to $250,000 instead of just to $75,000. It does not matter if the potential government guarantee is increased to $5 billion rather than what is proposed in this bill. If the lending institutions cannot make something on the loan, they are just not going to make it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Francis):: Is it the intention of the House that the Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Marchand) should speak at this time? If he does, he will close the debate.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Small Business)):: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take too much time this afternoon because there is another bill which is slated to follow mine. Some hon. members are perhaps anxious to try to get that bill through the House as well.
I want to thank all of my colleagues who have participated in the debate for their kind words and their generous support. By and large, there has been a willingness on the other side of the House to try to get this bill passed as soon as possible. After discussion in committee stage, I hope we can pass this bill and have it made the law of the land before the July 1 deadline of which we are aiming.
I do not want to deal at length with the proposals that were put before me, but I would like to deal with a few of them. The hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek) talked about a number of things. One of the things he mentioned was the reduction of paper work. This is certainly a priority of mine. W-: have already made some considerable strides. As announced a few months ago, this year 120,000 firms in the construction, transportation and the manufacturing industry have to report to Statistics Canada under at least one of the reporting requirements. Very shortly I hope to be able to introduce some amendments to the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act which will knock off 70,000 of
90,000	firms which have to report under the law. I think all this represents a considerable start on the reduction of paper work which is a great burden to small business. I assure hon. members opposite that this is a priority of mine and of the government. In this regard we have only made a beginning with this important measure.
The hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston) and the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) talked of the difficulties of securing money under the Small Businesses Loans Act. I well recognize the difficulty. I suggest that there is not one member of this House who has not received serious representations from constituents about the lack of funds available under the Small Businesses Loans Act. The hon.

May 6, 1977
Improvement Loans
member for Palliser dealt with one of the main difficulties in this regard. It relates to interest rates. The rate of interest is set by the governor in council, or by regulation. It is hoped that during the three year period the interest rate can be changed, with a change in the regulations, to reflect more adequately prevailing rates of interest. We hope that thereby banks and other lending institutions which are eligible to make loans under the program will lend money. I know the program has not worked well in the past. We are seriously considering a floating rate of interest, as suggested by the hon. member for Palliser.
Some hon. members criticize the $75,000 lending limit as not being high enough. If hon. members can convince me with argument and evidence presented in committee that the amount is not high enough, we shall seriously consider changing the limit. I remind hon. members that the average loan made under the act has been in the neighbourhood of $15,000 or $16,000; it therefore seems that the $75,000 limit is adequate. If convincing arguments for raising it are presented in committee, I will be happy to consider them.
The hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay and the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) spoke about the difficulty of communicating with small business. The hon. member for Kootenay West touched on the work of the Federal Business Development Bank and spoke, I believe, about incentive programs available through the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. He was referring to programs such as PAIT, PEP, IDAP, IRDIA and all those alphabet soup programs which, by and large, have not been available to small business because they have not employed high priced consultants and high priced staff who could make small businessmen aware of these programs. On the other hand the big business community has been well aware of them. We have made a real effort, by instituting the Enterprise Development Program which encompasses all these alphabet soup programs, to make all these programs available to the small business community, as opposed to the big business community which had access to them in the past.
I have touched on some of the highlights and most important points mentioned in this debate. I thank hon. members for participating, look forward to their suggestions, and tell them that I will consider them seriously. I look forward to their participation in debate in committee, with the hope that we can give this important legislation speedy passage. I realize it does not do everything wanted of it, but it was never intended to do everything. I think it will lead to a greater availability of funds for the business community. I am determined to make the Small Businesses Loans Act work. I want to see the $600 million now available lent under the Small Businesses Loans Act, Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, and Farm Improvement Loans Act. I am determined to make this money work, as it was intended to work.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. 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 referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.

Otto Emil Lang: that Bill C-41, to provide a maritime code for Canada and to amend the Canada Shipping Act and other acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I understand that the House is prepared to advance immediately to the third reading stage. Is it therefore agreed that the bill shall be deemed to have been read the second time, referred to the standing committee, reported without amendment, and concurred in at the report stage? Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It is agreed and so ordered.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, reported without amendment, and concurred in.
Mr. Marchand (for the Minister of Transport) moved: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, in making some brief remarks on Bill C-41, I am resuming the wearing of an old hat, that of Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. I point out that Bill C-41 is the successor in part to Bill C-61 of the last session of this parliament. I had something to do with that bill in proceedings in the House of Commons and in the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Originally Bill C-61, as it was known in the previous session, contained two major sections. One section undertook a massive reorganization, updating and revision of Canadian maritime law, and was known as the Maritime Code. The other section proposed some changes with respect to Canada's coasting trade. The Maritime Code provisions of Bill C-61 received, it is fair to say, virtually unanimous support. The coasting trade provisions aroused some controversy, and concerned several members of this House and certain members of the Canadian shipping community.
May 6, 1977

Bill C-61 was debated fully on second reading and considered extensively in hearings before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. There was even some travel by the committee to the west coast where it received views with respect to Bill C-61. The bill was returned to the House of Commons for report stage debate. That debate had been well advanced when the session adjourned. Subsequently, in order to expedite consideration of this important legislation, it was decided to separate the two major parts of the bill I have described. Accordingly, Bill C-41 now before the House incorporates only the Maritime Code portion of the previous bill. The coasting trade provisions' of Bill C-61 are not contained in Bill C-41. They have been removed and remain to be dealt with separately in a distinct piece of legislation.
There have been extensive discussions among all parties about the appropriate way to handle the bill before us this afternoon, namely, Bill C-41. There was agreement, as Your Honour has noted, to move with unanimous consent directly to third reading and to dispose of the matter without further debate because, as I mentioned, Bill C-41 contains the provisions of the Maritime Code which seem to be supported virtually unanimously and about which there is little disagreement. I would like to thank the House and all members for their co-operation in this respect, and I would like to express appreciation in particular to the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) who has been associated with this piece of legislation throughout its current life. Or Bill C-61 in the last session of parliament, during debates in the House and the work in the standing committee, the hon. gentleman has been most co-operative in trying to expedite the work of the House of Commons and of the committee, and I am most grateful to him for that.


Steve Eugene Paproski: What about the whips and House leaders?


Ralph Goodale: Yes, indeed; the House leaders on both sides and the whips. If the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) wants to make the list all inclusive, I will go back to my first remark in which I indicated that I would like to express my gratitude to all members of the House for their help in dealing with this piece of legislation. On behalf of the Minister of Transport may I express the appreciation and satisfaction of the government that Bill C-41 has been given expeditious attention by the House.


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


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I just want to add one or two comments on the passage of these portions of the restructed Maritime Code. It represents a major step in the history of maritime commerce in Canada. I think most of us, not only in this Chamber but in the country, who are connected with maritime activities appreciate it. It behooves us now to commend to the parliamentary secretary the degree of urgency felt by a number of related sectors of our economy in the area, and that we get
Maritime Code
ahead with books three and four and eventually with book five of the restructed Maritime Code, and at the same time get ahead as quickly as possible so that these matters might be referred to the standing committee for intensive review. I am referring to the sections of the Maritime Code, namely, sections 6 to 14, which were excluded from the bill as we see it in front of us.
I want to point out the importance of not losing sight of what was the major feature of this package, namely, the rules and directions that Canada wants to follow with respect to the coastal trade and the development of a Canadian register. A Canadian owned and Canadian manned coastal trading fleet remains very important. With those few objections, I am pleased to join the parliamentary secretary in allowing this code to receive third reading.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The House will now proceed to the consideration of order No. 23, the third reading of Bill C-23, to facilitate conversion to the metric system of measurement.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, it would seem expeditious for us now to move into the private members' hour. I trust that will be agreeable to the parliamentary secretary and to all other colleagues in the House.


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this sounds like a good idea, but perhaps there would be willingness on the other side to give third reading to Bill C-23.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Before any agreement can be reached to give Bill C-23 third reading, the motion should be put to the House.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I was not being facetious when I raised the matter. It would seem to be inappropriate for us to begin a debate now on what the government on the one hand regards as a matter of some priority, and on the other on which the Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Marchand) could not answer a question put to him by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazan-kowski) a few days ago. It might be appropriate if we proceeded now to private members' business. I am sure the minister would not want to start his speech at two minutes to four o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it agreed that we call it four o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

May 6, 1977
Public Servants' Training


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Since we will proceed to private members' business early, may I remind hon. members of the ruling on April 30 by Mr. Deputy Speaker that private members' business should end not later than one hour after it has been called.
It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills, private bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of establishing in the National Capital Region, a National Administration School for its public servants, which would be a first step towards the creation of an agency responsible for everything in the field of training and development of public servants.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to propose this motion today. All my colleagues, as well as their constituents, emphasize the need for efficiency and competence within the Federal Public Service. That is why, Mr. Speaker, this motion suggests that the government consider the advisability of setting up a National Administration School for public servants, where they would receive a training which would make them aware of their shortcomings and would be provided with upgrading opportunities that would equip them with the necessary skills for better work performance.
Civil servants, by the very nature of their employment, must serve the public and consequently support, help and advise MPs who represent the people. Any trade or profession implies training and public servants, at all levels, should receive thorough training and of course compete on a collective basis for promotion in their careers. Such public servants should improve their performance by upgrading their training and improving such basic qualifications which will make them good administrators. The idea of a National Administration School for public servants is not new. I found that the idea was presented many times in the past. But I did not attempt to give the background of programs or projects which have not been successful until now.
I have no time either, in the 20 minutes at my disposal, to review all programs or courses offered to federal civil servants. You just have to consult such government agencies as the Treasury Board and the Public Service Commission to realize that there are now many interdepartmental programs as well as training and development programs within various departments.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier).]
The question is whether it would be more realistic and more economical to establish a school that would meet all needs of the federal public service and government agencies if possible. Within the last ten years, the public service of Canada underwent tremendous changes. From 1965 to 1975, the number of employees has gone up from 140,000 to more than 273,000-a jump of 95 per cent over ten years. The increasing demand for services required not only the expansion of existing programs but also the creation of new programs. In many cases, several departments had to change their structure significantly.
For instance, I shall mention the passage by this House of the Official Languages Act in 1969 and Parliament's resolution of June 1973 to demonstrate that important measures have been taken to change the attitude regarding the use of the French language within the public service. Furthermore, and it might be as significant, we should recall that during the same period central agencies have delegated to the departments important administrative powers such as personnel management.
This fast growth combined with important organizational changes at management and staffing level followed by a restraint period have taxed the capacity of adaptation of civil servants and certainly raised justified fears.
An inquiry on internal communication needs among civil servants has been conducted in 1975 on the initiative of the secretary of the Treasury Board. The authors pointed out in their conclusions the comments made by the minister on November 18, 1976:
The results of the inquiry seem to go beyond the necessity of improving the policy and the formal communication procedures; they have implications for the training, the assessment of performance, the policy and programs for the official language, the style of management and supervision, the climate of communication.
In the same report, we learn that 58 per cent of civil servants have expressed the wish to investigate opportunities for training and improvement, 55 per cent a way to influence their career and, finally, 53 per cent the opportunities for promotions or transfers in their department. Like all Canadian workers most civil servants are concerned with the opportunities for promotion, the full use of their abilities and their personal development. It will also be remembered, Mr. Speaker, that last January the President of the Privy Council announced the establishment of a special committee of inquiry on personnel management and the merit principle.
That committee will be called upon to examine among other things the merit principle and its application as regards the initial appointment, internal promotions and appointments, and the eligibility of civil servants to participate in competitions; moreover, that committee will have to examine the whole question of employee access to training in addition to the operation and assistance for the operation of training and development programs.
I will try, Mr. Speaker, to impress upon the House the necessity to set up a specialized training school suited to the
May 6, 1977

needs of the federal civil service. I think that is needed if one considers that the requirements of the civil service are not necessarily being met by regular courses at the post-secondary level. Indeed, to be useful the course taken by government employees must as much as possible be closely related to the duties for which they are given. Otherwise, there is a great risk that this will result in a loss of time and, consequently, a misuse of public funds. I also want to point out that I am not talking about an institution of higher knowledge in public administration but a coordinating body for all that might be necessary for the training and the development of civil servants.
For the purposes of my argument, Mr. Speaker, I want to distinguish between management training, the research that is always necessary to improve public administration, and the training and development of the various clienteles from within the civil service who make up the great majority of civil servants. When we talk of management training we are basically talking about the senior civil service. A very interesting and well made study was prepared at my request by the research staff of the parliamentary library. The study deals with a few experiments in staff training and development under various foreign governments. So it is quite useful and allows us to know where we stand vis-a-vis other governments and their serious efforts to ensure proper training of their civil servants. In Canada, as we know, two central bodies, namely the Treasury Board and the Civil Service Commission, look after the training and the development of civil servants in the employ of the federal government. Because I do not have the time, it is impossible for me to cover this important area of management training, and I invite all hon. members to read the study I just mentioned.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to speak about training and development. Training is defined as a process aimed at putting theory in practice so that the employee acquires the ability, knowledge and experience required to do his present duties with effectiveness and efficiency. Development is defined as an activity aimed at increasing methodically the knowledge, ability and experience of employees so that they may take on new responsibilities and have more complex duties. Mr. Speaker, these two definitions are taken from the Personnel Management Manual, document 77-32, which was published recently. This means that training is aimed at the present and development at the future.
To do its job, the Public Service Commission has established a Staff Development Branch which constitutes the central training agency for the whole public service. The branch is responsible for developing and offering to public servants a vast choice of courses in various fields, including professional development, the science or technique of management, specialized training, and finally, linguistic training.
The branch must develop and implement programs adjusted to the particular needs of the departments and loan them the services of its specialists to analyze their training needs. It should be noted that the initiative for change must come from the Treasury Board. Indeed, section 7(1 )(b) of the Financial
Public Servants' Training
Administration Act gives the Treasury Board the responsibility for determining needs for training and development requirements of personnel in the public service and of setting the conditions for this training and development. Also, as stated in section 5(b) of the Public Service Employment Act, the Canadian legislator, well aware of the need to ensure an ever more effective administration, has stipulated the obligation for the Public Service Commission to operate and assist deputy heads in the operation of staff training and development programs in the public service.
Needless to say, the costs to the Staff Development Branch of professional and management training programs are assumed by the various departments. The PSC's Staff Development Branch is therefore in direct competition with other public and private education institutions. For that reason, the branch insists that quality, pertinence and costs be the main criteria used by departments in deciding whether their services should be used.
The branch is constantly endeavouring to enlarge the selection of programs and courses available. In 1975 for instance, in the field of management only, the branch made available to public servants at the various levels of responsibilities and in the various professional groups some 360 programs, courses, seminars, sessions and workshops. The number of candidates for professional training was 12,350 in 1975, a 3,200 increase over 1974. In fact, 9,099 civil servants went through professional training in 1975, as opposed to 8,751 in 1974.
It will be seen, Mr. Speaker, that there are a large proportion of public servants having applied for or now going through training. It should be noted that during fiscal year 1975-76, 30 per cent of the Staff Development Branch courses were to be given in the various regions, which means that they were to be decentralized. At the same time, 75 per cent of courses were to be available in French during the same year. Finally, the bureau felt it could offer all courses in both languages during fiscal year 1976-77.
There is an increasing use of the Staff Development Branch by departments to study their training needs, recommend on and develop courses tailored to their needs. In 1975 for example, 23 government departments called upon the branch to analyze their needs, develop special training programs or set up workshops or seminars, a 43 per cent increase over 1974. Mr. Speaker, I would now like to turn to the selection of candidates for the various training programs.
In a recent statement, the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, Mr. Edgar Gallant, referred to the continuing concern of the commission to ensure an equitable selection of candidates, still based on the merit principle, and to promote equal career opportunities within the public service for women, French-speaking Canadians and native people. He said, and I quote:
Real progress has been made in this regard, but there are still some unacceptable weaknesses. They can be attributable in part to stereotyped attitudes and to the lack of training opportunities. One of the key factors may have been as well

May 6, 1977
Public Servants' Training
the use of recruiting standards and methods which only took into account the education, behaviour and experience that are to be found among English-speaking male Canadians who traditionally made up the larger part of Canadian labour.
It is most important, Mr. Speaker, that all public servants feel they have equal opportunities to develop fully in terms of their career and that their skills and personal abilities are fully used and that they be convinced they have all the same promotion opportunities. It has not always been so. Should I refer, Mr. Speaker, to the difficulties which have met and are still meeting some minority groups, which find it most difficult to make a career in the public service. Certainly one among a host of factors against many Canadians was the difficult and sometimes unbearable conditions of our provincial education system which affected the training of young Canadians, men and women. Being ill-equipped for the competitive life of the labour market, those minorities were not however more stupid or less ambitious. They did not have access to basic instruments to get a proper education and therefore, whenever they were hired as public servants, most of them were filling vacancies at the administrative and operating support levels.
Fortunately things have now changed slightly. People have acquired a greater collective awareness of such discriminatory practices and our society tends towards more justice and seems ready do correct its past errors. Mr. Speaker, education is one of the most important influences to maintain our main social values. Consequently, true and continuous efforts have been made to remedy traditional inequities so that on one hand our minorities can be assured of an equal status and of career opportunities and that, on the other hand, an end can be put to all kinds of unfair cliches. In that respect, I must commend the Public Service Commission and all various departments for their constant and honest efforts. They have been effective agents of change. The advisability of establishing a National Administration School for civil servants employed by the federal government is absolutely necessary, Mr. Speaker, if one considers that the proper needs of the public service are not necessarily met by regular courses given at the postsecondary level.
While recognizing that some civil servants might need a technical or scientific training which requires university studies, it seems clear that public administration training as such would be better ensured if it were given in a school especially created for civil servants employed by the federal government. This way, the creation of an administration school in the national capital region would allow student civil servants to benefit from visits in various departments and government agencies, from encounters with senior civil servants and from on-the-job training within the public service, integrated with institutional teaching. No need to say that these various possibilities would not be available to those who prefer to study individually, in colleges or universities.
Furthermore, the special vocational role of a National Administration School would allow the various departments and the school to agree on intensive specialized sessions of two or three weeks for specific groups of civil servants. Finally, the establishment of such a specialized school by the Canadian

government should be a first step towards the creation of a body entrusted with the training and development of public servants. This having been established, Mr. Speaker, why should we set up a body responsible for the training and development of public servants?
A study of the various facets of the training and development of federal civil servants clearly illustrates the obvious need for an agency capable of coordinating the various initiatives already taken in the field. For instance, even the Chairman of the Public Service Commission, Mr. Edgar Gallant, admits that his agency is only administering 15 per cent of training activities within the federal public service. That is because many departments have very advanced training programs to meet their own specific needs. Such is the case in the Post Office Department and the Transport Department.
Flowever, the special initiatives of the departments lead to a considerable variety of interventions by each one of them. To be convinced of it, one need but mention the number of employees involved in training programs or furthering their studies, and the resulting expenses. That diversity is such that it could lead to a loss of control over that sector of departmental activity. That is why, Mr. Speaker, one is not surprised by the questions hon. members put, both on the government side and that of the opposition, which reveal their concern about departmental expenditures for employee training, educational leave, trips, transfers and all that is involved in improving one's qualifications. By putting those questions, hon. members are only trying to exercise the supervision that is needed in a field where the skeleton key reply of the departments always seems to be the same: We are trying to meet our own requirements.
The need to set up a coordinating agency seems obvious. To convince ourselves of its use, let us remember the need now being felt for a body capable of making a survey of all needs in the federal public service, of evaluating the results obtained by existing programs, and suggesting needed changes. A study of the training and development of employees working for the federal government reveals the need to adopt new rules relating to the choice of candidates for educational leave.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time is expired. However, he could continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I have only a few things left to say. It is essential that the government acts in this regard to eliminate as much as possible the possible partisanship and the risk of arbitrary decisions. It seems that the matter of the training and development of civil servants will soon be examined in depth. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the establishment of a government school would allow us to centralize the existing systems. It would allow the government, in this period of austerity, to make economies of scale while providing better planification to maximize the potential of the available pedagogic resources.
May 6, 1977

Supported by more adequate research on training and development, that school would create programs and courses tailored to the needs of the civil service. Last, the decentralization of efforts would have to take into account the reality of regions by offering decentralized courses. If training and development courses are available throughout the civil service, there is no doubt that the population basis being larger, the cost efficiency would also be greater. The success of such a training and development program depends on the recruitment and stability of highly qualified personnel. The training and development school would be a guarantee for the future that the government would be staffed with efficient and qualified employees.
I am simply proposing to this House a sort of College Canada for the administrative echelons of the Government of Canada whereby the excellent reputation of the Canadian public service known throughout the world could be honed, polished, and made even more ready to serve not only the federal government but all the people of Canada. In this way we can take our place among the leading nations of the world which each have their own public service colleges.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for bringing forward this motion today. If I may, I should like to underscore the remarks he made about the Canadian public service and Canadian public servants.
Both he and I, along with other members of the House, have the privilege of representing large numbers of public servants. Sometimes they are misunderstood. Sometimes the purpose of the public service is misunderstood. Sometimes, too, the work of the public service, in terms of its objectives and functions, is misunderstood. The public sector has an objective different from that pursued by many parts of the private sector. I support the motion, partly for the reason that the proposition envisaged by the hon. member would go a long way toward creating a climate of understanding.
I do not think it is enough merely to commend an hon. member for putting forward a good motion. I believe something should result from such a motion and I hope this will be the case today. There is no more appropriate place than the national capital in which to locate an institution such as the hon. member is asking the House to consider. Quite frankly, the idea of a college within which the skills of public servants could be increased, utilizing the tremendous experience we have here now to assist others, appeals to me.
I hope it will not be lost upon the hon. member-I am sure it is not-that Carleton University in this city has for many years conducted a School of Public Administration. It could be within the hon. member's consideration that this school might become the focal point for the kind of institution he has in mind. The School of Public Administration of Carleton University has an excellent reputation.
Public Servants' Training
I do not wish to prolong the debate. I would only say that the hon. member's objectives are commendable and supportable, and I hope the House will share this view. As I say, I certainly want the matter to be considered further. I shall therefore propose an amendment, one with which I hope the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) will be in agreement, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). It is as follows:
That all the words after "That" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"motion No. 4 respecting the establishment of a National Administration School be withdrawn, and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates."
I move this amendment in the hope that the work done by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier can be dealt with in a positive way and I trust the motion, as amended, will go to the standing committee for consideration. If there is any doubt about the validity of the amendment, I hope the Chair will ask the House whether or not hon. members are prepared to consent thereto at some stage in the course of this debate. I believe it is important that this excellent idea, one which could be the beginning of the upgrading of the already high standards of the public service, should not be lost. I am very pleased to support it this afternoon.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, we in the NDP
agree that the principle set forth in the motion of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) is a good one. The idea is to establish in the national capital region a school of public administration as a first step toward the creation of an agency responsible for the training and development of public servants.
In some 12 years in the House of Commons I have noticed that members from the city of Ottawa and surrounding areas have been the main spokesmen in connection with matters concerning public servants. I look across the Chamber and I see the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) in his place. I also see the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle), and, of course, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) is here. All of them are very able, very articulate, and very sensitive to the problems and needs of public servants. While I am about it, I might add that we in the NDP have as our main spokesman on this subject the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who has taken a special interest in the problems of public servants and who in many instances has acted as liaison between them and parliament in the promotion of constructive ideas.
The qualities needed by good public servants are efficiency, competence, understanding, and co-operation. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier mentioned this in his speech. In the final analysis, there must be some way of enabling public servants to reach their best potential. It is therefore important that the courses in contemplation are tailored not only to the needs of the public service but to the needs of the public.
I see that some of the members present in the Chamber this afternoon are from the City of Toronto. May I use an example based on conditions in that city? When I moved to my own

May 6, 1977
Public Servants' Training
riding of Broadview 30 years ago it was 95 per cent Anglo-Saxon. The other 5 per cent was made up of different groups from Europe. In 1977 it is between 40 per cent and 45 per cent Anglo-Saxon. The second biggest group is the Greeks and Macedonians, and the third group is the Chinese. Then there is a large group of blacks from the Caribbean and other islands. We have many East Indians from India, and many nationalities from Europe.
What I am trying to point out is that public servants have to be trained to deal with the problems of people in ridings such as Broadview. My example can be multiplied right across the country. Public servants not only have to be fluent in one or more languages, they have to be competent in the subject matters with which they deal. I cannot help but think that pension problems, unemployment insurance problems and immigration problems have to be dealt with by public servants who can relate to people who have difficulties regarding language and regarding the understanding of the contents of legislation which we pass. Therefore I am rather pleased and proud of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, whom I have known for almost ten years and who has played a very active and articulate part as a parliamentary secretary. I think he is to be commended on the idea set forth in this motion.
I am not going to speak much longer, Mr. Speaker, but I do want to say that I agree with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). In fact the acting House leader spoke to me during the debate and asked me how I felt about the motion, and I said that the subject matter of the motion should be referred to committee, where it can be studied in depth and witnesses can be called to present their ideas. As a result of this I hope the government will take the initiative to set up in the National Capital Region a school to train public servants.
I hope this idea is not confined to members in Ottawa and the surrounding area but is common right across Canada. It requires the support and initiative of us all. Therefore we in the New Democratic Party are proud to endorse this motion.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, I also rise to endorse not only the motion but the amendment moved by my good friend, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). I was particularly pleased at the remarks of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) because, as he pointed out, it appears too frequently to be the case that it is the members in the local area who are carrying the load of representing public servants in terms of the problems of the public service generally. Only too seldom do we hear the kind of intervention we have heard from the hon. member for Broadview, and I simply want to say-I am sure I speak on behalf of all local members-that we particularly welcome his interest in the problems of the public service.
The motion before us today is certainly one which I enthusiastically endorse. There is a major problem of training in the public service-access to training, fairness of training. We hear of gross irregularities in some cases in terms of such
IMr. Gilbert.)
things as eligibility for leave to continue one's studies at public expense. This is something which has not always been uniformly administered. There is need for training of a large number of specialists, who are recruited for their technical knowledge but who know nothing about the principle of the public service and its operation. This is a very serious defect in the present scheme of things.
Indeed, if I were to offer criticisms of personnel administration in the Public Service of Canada today, apart from the collective bargaining side, I would say that the lack of a systematic policy of transfer would be done. The lack of a proper, fair, and generally recognized system of training and professional development would be another. For this reason I commend my colleague for Ottawa-Vanier on his motion today.
It has been my contention that the government must look at a lot more than just a little patchwork here and a little patchwork there with the public service. The day is long overdue for the creation of a ministry of the public service with an over-all responsibility to look at these things. Until we have such a ministry I think we are going to continue to see such situations as delay in bringing amendments to the Public Service Staff Relations Act before this House. We had a joint report from this place and the other place laid on the Table in January, 1976, before this parliament, and I am still waiting for the legislation to have first reading in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cyril Lloyd Francis: There are many other initiatives, Mr. Speaker, which could and would be taken were there one particular arm of the Government of Canada charged with the responsibility of administering all those little tag ends of personnel administration which are tucked away in different government departments. When I inquire about the Public Service Staff Relations Act amendments, I am told that that is the responsibility of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), though how he gets that responsibility I fail to understand.
I gather that my colleague who put forward this motion today says that this matter should be under the direction of the Public Service Commission. I see he is shaking his head; I was not clear from the context under what direction it should be. I would hope it would not be another of that amorphous family of agencies reporting directly to parliament, such as the Auditor General, the Electoral Boundaries Commissioner, the Official Languages Commissioner, the Public Service Commission-a large group of agencies which, in effect, get no ministerial supervision or direction in far too many cases.
I think the creation of this school would raise certain questions, such as what would be the provincial participation, what would be the community participation, to what extent would it be a kind of in-house development, to what extent would it be open to others to participate for the free exchange of ideas? These broad questions are implied in the motion.
I think the motion is a perfectly good one, one of many steps that should be taken. But I look forward to the day when the government comes to this House and says that the public

service deserves a little more priority, a little more attention, and a little less fragmentation among many departments of government; that one particular ministry will be given the responsibility for implementing this kind of proposal. When that day comes I will rise proudly in this House and support the government.


Mr. Rod  Biaker@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services: Mr. Speaker, as members on this side are aware, and in keeping with the traditions of the House of Commons, i am the parliamentary secretary who is responsible for the organization of the private members' hour, at least on the government side of the House. Accordingly I am now and will be speaking for the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras).
The parliamentary secretary and member of parliament for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) proposes that the government study the advisability of an administrative college for the Canadian public service. This would be something similar to the College d'Europe in Bruges, near Brussels in Belgium, or to the ficole Nationale d'Administration in Paris.
Following long distance communication with the President of the Treasury Board, as well as consultations with various members of this House, it has become apparent there is very considerable support for the proposal expressed in the motion and the speech of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier. In addition, while debate was proceeding, the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts), who has responsibilities in this regard, dropped by to advise me that not only could he support the motion moved by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier but by chance he was also the first Canadian graduate of the ficole Nationale d'Administration in Paris, to which I just referred. Support has already been expressed by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), who is the House leader for the Conservative Party by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) representing the New Democratic Party, and by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis).
Before I suggest unanimous support for this motion and the amendment sending the subject matter to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates for further study, there is one other matter I should like to bring to the attention of the House. I do so, Mr. Speaker, because you in your position as Speaker of the House cannot take part and participate in the debate on this subject. Yet I have been made aware that the matter under consideration has already been brought up in many other circles. An example of that was mentioned this afternoon by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton in that he referred to the possibilities of Carleton University in this regard.
And further example, and rather an interesting one, is that of the board of education of Prescott-Russell has passed a resolution to encourage the federal government to consider the establishment of such a college in the Rockland area. I understand that is part of the riding that you represent, Mr. Speaker. I mention this, as I said, because I know your position prohi-
Public Servants' Training
bits you from entering into this debate and I thought it deserved attention.
In summary, I suggest to hon. members and to you, Mr. Speaker, that you now seek the consent of this House in order to determine whether there is approval of the motion and the amendment to send the subject matter of this motion and this amendment to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. Should the House find this suggestion agreeable, I would like to express, on behalf of all members and all parties, our congratulations to the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier who has this afternoon, and not for the first time, proven the imagination and commitment for which he has become rather well known to this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) for the quite remarkable way he has just moved this motion calling for the establishment of an administration school for the public service.
I must say that I am glad, however, that in 1968 I made an humble and brilliant speech trying to convince the government of the time, and that the idea I planted then has finally caught on. I am also glad to suggest that this administration school could serve as an inexhaustible pool of higher public service officials for all Canadian provinces to come and borrow some of the extraordinary talents who would have received their training in the motherland of Canada, in the government and in the national capital area.
And this will also provide excellent opportunities for young people who show growing interest in humanities and social sciences and others, and whose talents could be made available to the Canadian government. Moreover, I am very glad that all members of parliament, particularly the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) contributed so favourably to the debate and agreed that the national capital area offers extraordinary opportunities to the federal government to create in various sectors of society those things which are essential not only to the administration of a country but to what could be done to reflect the true image of Canada, a real capital to our country's dimension.
And I hope that will be a step towards the formation of a sort of federal district-I said a sort of-so that in other sectors we can work as intelligently as the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) just did. I hope that all members will understand that, in the national capital area, we will be able to stand as a kind of example of Canadian life as it should have been since Confederation. Mr. Speaker, I introduced in the House a bill that will be dealt with here, and I hope members from all sides will consider it to understand better the problems in the national capital region and try to find a solution to remedy these problems dating back to Confederation. I should like once again to commend the hon. member for

May 6, 1977
Public Servants' Training
Ottawa-Vanier for his brilliant and excellent speech, and I hope the study in committee will reflect a very enlightened approach.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The amendment of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) reads as follows:
That all the words after "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"motion No. 4 respecting the establishment of a National Administration School be withdrawn, and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates."
Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Carried.
Amendment (Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton)) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is now on the motion as amended. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion as amended?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Carried.
Motion (as amended) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker).


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for your kindness in dealing with my amendment and seeing it put in proper form. This is a profound moment because the House of Commons has been able to agree to send a matter raised by private member to a committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it agreed that we call it
five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being five o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 4.50 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.



END OF VOLUME V