1977-07-15

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the failure of the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport, in spite of ten months in her new portfolio, to develop a credible national policy on amateur sport and physical fitness, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle):
That this Flouse calls upon the minister to convene a federal-provincial conference to deal with this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REQUEST FOR PROGRAM OF TRAINING AND FINANCING FOR ATHLETES TO PREPARE FOR OLYMPICS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of Canada's anticipated participation in the Olympics at Moscow in 1980, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle):
That under the supervision of a federal-provincial committee, a complete program of training and Financing be established for Canadian athletes so as to allow them to prepare adequately for the Olympic games in Moscow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: 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.


SUGGESTED PAYMENT TO EMPLOYEES FOR EXTRA HOURS WORKED THIS SESSION-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the summer break of the House of Commons this year will be the shortest in recent years, and in view of the fact that this will mean the staff of the House of Commons and the Library of Parliament will be working a much larger proportion of the year on longer hours than is usual, and in view of the fact that these employees have already been penalized this year by wage increases which were less than the present rate of inflation and much less than those given people in the Public Service, I move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt):
That this House recommend an extra sum of money be allocated to the employees of the House of Commons and the Library of Parliament to cover the amount of extra hours they will have to work this summer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In order for such a motion to be presented, it would require the unanimous consent of the House. I have some misgivings about the administrative responsibility of this matter. It does not concern the government, but rather the Chair.


An hon. Member:: It is for you, too.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Parliament can express itself.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know if I can classify myself as an employee of the House of Commons for the purpose of the motion. Presentation of such a motion for debate requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Paproski:: The Liberal government said: "No."
7702

July 15, 1977
Old Age Security Act FINANCE


PROPOSED COMMITTEE STUDY OF REASONS CANADIANS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. My motion is prompted by the alarming amount of money which is leaving Canada through Canadian investment in United States real estate, which has gone from $300 million in 1972 to a high of $2.5 billion this year, to the point where Canadian investors own 30 per cent of the major apartment complexes in Seattle, Washington and Canadian firms have developed 17 major complexes in United States cities. Since this mass exodus of money into United States real estate is due to relatively poor political and economic times in Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That this House instruct the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs to conduct an immediate investigation into the amount of money leaving Canada by way of Canadian investment in United States real estate, and to bring forth recommendations on how this trend can be reversed.


Mr. Speaker:: 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.

[DOT] (mo)


OLD AGE SECURITY ACT
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, because I believe the time has come for this motion to be accepted, I ask leave to move it, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas). I therefore move:
That this House urges the government to introduce without further delay an amendment to the Old Age Security Act to end the discrimination therein against persons of single status between the ages of 60 and 65 by providing for the equivalent of the spouse's allowance to be paid as well to widows, spinsters, widowers, and bachelors between the ages of 60 and 65, provided they are out of the labour market.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of any such motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent necessity. In view of the fact that this week a farmer from Salmo, British Columbia was denied the right to purchase grain from Purina Mills of Spokane, Washington, because the mill stated they deal only in bushels, not in kilograms, and in view of the fact that the farmer returned empty-handed as a result of this false impression created by the Metric Commission in the United States grain industry, and in view of the fact that inquiries by my office with a senior official responsible for metric conversion revealed a total ignorance of the subject, and that I was only enlightened by the provincial Department of Agriculture of British Columbia, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski):
That the government improve its information policies with its own officials and with the Metric Commission and with U.S. grain handling officials, or withdraw Bill C-23 so that farmers will not be denied vital grain supplies as a result of information failures.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State responsible for Fitness and Amateur Sport.
Considering that last September the government appointed a minister responsible for amateur sport and physical fitness, that, consequently, the Canadian public could rightfully expect an overall and urgently needed physical fitness policy, that the minister has failed to submit positive ideas in this respect, being somewhat satisfied with administering the few millions of dollars which the Department of National Health and Welfare had already placed at her disposal and which are definitely inadequate, could the minister tell us, after holding this portfolio for nearly a year, whether she intends to develop, through legislation or otherwise, a credible national policy in line with the expectations of the Canadian public.
July 15, 1977


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: The policy is in its final stage of preparation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.
As everyone else, Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we of course have had occasion to see the minister give news conferences and speak of her good intentions, but in the interest of all Canada we feel that an overall policy should be adopted. At the time of the speech from the throne, the government did give cause for expectations in Canadians, so I put my question again to the minister to give her a chance to reply if she really wants to be taken seriously by the country. Does she intend to introduce in this Parliament an over-all policy in which, of course, the provinces would co-operate? What are the real intentions of the minister: will she limit herself to giving a few news conferences to give illusions to the Canadians, as is the case now?


Iona Campagnolo: When the policy is prepared I shall be very pleased to share it not only with the hon. member but with all the people of Canada.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, as we all know that the government is responsible for allowing all Canadians to develop in any field of endeavour, according to their tastes and talents, has the minister actually looked into the possibility of financing the basic facilities that are required in all areas of our country? If so, what kind of budget does she intend to present, what financial recommendations does she intend to make, if she wants to have any credibility with regard to an overall policy?


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, 1 understand the hon. member is trying to determine whether or not the federal government is going to go into capital expenditures for provision of facilities across the country. I would remind him that at present Loto Canada is supplying 12.5 per cent of its total revenue to the provinces which is utilized for the provision of facilities. In addition, at this time it is not my intention to provide capital funds for facilities. However, if this should change, I would certainly be the first person to advise the hon. member.


CONTINGENCY PLANS IN EVENT FUNDS NOT SUPPLIED BY LOTO CANADA
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, considering the extent to which the minister's plans for the future of sport in Canada depend on revenue derived from Loto Canada, what contingency plan has the minister developed to meet the near collapse of Loto Canada in the face of provincial lottery competitions?
Oral Questions


Iona Campagnolo: I do not see at the present time that the collapse of Loto Canada will rest with the decision of one province, and certainly there are contingency plans, but I do not think this is the appropriate time for that to be discussed, since I do not have the time to delineate them during the question period.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, all we want to hear is some reassurance that the minister is aware of conditions that are before us already and two years in advance of her anticipation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Howard Earl Johnston: In light of the declining Loto Canada revenues, does the minister anticipate a round of conferences with the provinces to obtain a share of their lottery revenue, or will she rely on private endeavours from organizations with which she has already interfered in a startling attempt to use sport to bolster the government's political policies?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Iona Campagnolo: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it extremely clear to the hon. member that Loto Canada has no intention of laying down and dying.


An hon. Member:: Don't be bumptious, and answer the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Woolliams:: Watch your grammar, Iona.


Iona Campagnolo: We always like your grammar, Eldon.
On the second part of the question which the hon. member has raised regarding interference in the sports world, I feel that the reference is ill-advised. When it comes to his reference to the sports governing organizations of the Organization of African Unity, I cannot believe that the hon. member would find it more suitable that Canada should be in favour of apartheid in sports.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


MANPOWER
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Three days ago the minister acknowledged outside this House that he would be introducing new employment programs to reduce the high level of unemployment in all of Canada's regions. Can the minister indicate to the House
80020-23!^

July 15, 1977
Oral Questions
whether he is now able to announce the details of the new programs, and if not, will he give us an assurance that he will do so when the House meets during the pipeline debate?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: I would recommend to the hon. member a careful reading of precisely what I said on that occasion. I did comment on the second phase of the winter works projects and the announcement of $225 million for this particular winter on that particular project.


David Orlikow: In the press release issued by Premier Schrey-er last Friday he said that the Prime Minister had indicated to him that "job creation plans for the coming months were already close to completion". Did Premier Schreyer understand the Prime Minister correctly in his assumption that there are new programs, or is the minister saying that the only program which the government has considered to deal with unemployment is the release of the rest of the money for the Canada Works Program, as indicated?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: No, Mr. Speaker, we indicated that we had a job experience training program with a summer component. We were looking to establish a winter component on that one, and we were looking to other programs with different mixes. We found that particular programs such as co-operative education might win some favour with the provinces, and we hope to work with them on that particular aspect. It is an on-going project at all times, and we want to improve on what is already a very splendid system.


David Orlikow: Are hon. members of this House to understand that despite the fact that unemployment has been substantially higher in each month of this year compared with the same months last year, there is no money for any employment programs contemplated by the government except that which was allocated by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration for Canada Works and Young Canada Works?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: No matter what was said, 1 am sure that is what the hon. member would probably propagate across the country. However, I have indicated that we are constantly looking at our programs to monitor which ones work and which do not and to decide where more money can be put. That is what we propose to continue doing.


CONFEDERATION
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister.
Can the Prime Minister tell the House how many members will form the task force on national unity, and can he tell us at

the same time if this number will be proportional to the population of each province?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to have proportional representation. We want the task force to be composed of members from various groups and various regions.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Is it true that there will be only one representative from the province of Quebec, if ever one can be found, within this task force?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had listened to my previous answer, he would understand that we do not intend to have one representative by province, no matter its population. We want Canadians concerned with the matter of national unity irrespective of the statistical problems which seem to bother the hon. member.


ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL COACHING SCHOOL-REASON FOR DELAY OF ANNOUNCEMENT
Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back to the minister who is becoming known as the minister responsible for fatness and spectator sports-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul Yewchuk: In view of the lack of an over-all policy dealing with fitness and amateur sport, and in view of the up-coming Olympics and the importance of developing athletes I would like to ask the minister a specific question. When her budget was discussed in the committee on March 29 the minister indicated that she would make an announcement by June 1 with respect to the establishment of a national coaching school. Six weeks have now gone by, and the minister has remained totally silent on this subject. I wonder if she can offer the House an explanation for her silence.


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, members of the opposition seem to want it both ways. They do not want me to give press conferences, but they do want me to make announcements.


An hon. Member:: Make them in the House.


Iona Campagnolo: On the matter of athlete support in Canada-


Steve Eugene Paproski: You mean athletic support.


Iona Campagnolo: Athlete support. I am quite sure the hon. member recalls the other kind.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
July 15, 1977


Steve Eugene Paproski: We are going to gild one for you.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Iona Campagnolo: Do hon. members opposite want to hear what the athletes of Canada have in the way of support or not? My branch has an operation called Game Plan. Game Plan used to be subsidized by the private sector to a much larger degree than it is now, and as a result of the private sector's having removed some support, it has become necessary for the government to make up that financial loss. This has been done through Loto Canada.
The hon. member wants to know when the national coaching school will be launched. The first part of it will be launched September 1. In other areas of athlete support we have the national coaching television program which will be begun this spring. If hon. members opposite want to know what moneys the people of Canada are paying to support athletes, they need only ask, and I shall supply them with the amounts allotted to each of the athletes who are being supplied with basic funding by the people of Canada.


ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL COACHING SCHOOL-CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES
Paul Yewchuk: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister tell the House whether she has been able to achieve any sort of understanding with the provinces since their co-operation will be necessary in so far as the establishment of a national coaching school is concerned? If she has achieved understanding why has she not informed the House?


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, this is a rather delicate matter. There have been two scheduled meetings of federal-provincial conferences on sport. The first was to be held last November but was subsequently cancelled, the last was held in June and I was not invited to attend. When the provinces do wish to speak to me, I am most anxious to speak to them.


Steve Eugene Paproski: They do not want you to go into the locker rooms.


CONFEDERATION
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether the right hon. Prime Minister is now prepared to accept the suggestion of the opposition concerning the establishment of a joint parliamentary committee on national unity involving all hon. members of the House of Commons.
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated during the debate, I think, it seems to me that we are a bit too far into the session to establish such a committee. We hope the House will be able to adjourn within a matter of days and I do not really see the need for debating the resolution mentioned by the hon. member if the session is to end in a few days.


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I should like to refer to testimony given by the Chairman of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited before the Porter Commission on July 12. When questioned about the marketing practices of AECL and specifically when questioned on the Argentinian reactor sale he replied:
The government of Canada is responsible for the marketing policy.
He went on to say with regard to the Argentinian deal that that would slip into the kind of category of a loss leader to get into a market. Given those statements by the Chairman of AECL in which he denies responsibility for marketing practices, given the letter written by Dr. Foster to the hon. member for Vegreville in which he denies responsibility for the marketing practices of AECL, in light of the $130 million loss, the fiasco sustained in the Argentinian deal, would the minister tell the House whether it was he or his predecessor in that portfolio who sanctioned this marketing policy attributed to the government by the Chairman of AECL when he described it as a loss leader sale?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, if one listened carefully to the hon. lady's question one would note a good deal of confusion, perhaps intended, on her part. At one point she talks about marketing policies and at the next point about marketing practices and she confuses them completely with a view to trying to confuse an already difficult situation. With respect to the sale of reactors, the policy of the government has been to sell reactors. That is the marketing policy question; with respect to the marketing practices, that is a corporate policy.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister if he is denying the statements made by the Chairman of AECL before the Porter Commission in which he was asked particularly about the marketing practices and attributed them to the government of Canada.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. lady will look at Hansard and re-read her first question she will see it concerned marketing policy but not marketing practices.

July 15, 1977
Oral Questions


INQUIRY AS TO PRESENT DUTIES OF MR. FOSTER
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: 1 have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, Mr. Speaker, which arises out of the dismissal of Mr. John Foster, chief executive officer of AECL and a letter he directed to me in which he indicates he is still an employee of AECL. He further indicates that he accepts no responsibility for the mismanagement of AECL. I ask the minister to say what are Mr. Foster's present duties, and since he is no longer chief executive officer, has his salary been cut?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Foster has no duties at present; he is on leave. As I told the House, I hope we shall succeed in working out some technical consulting assignment for him. I expect that may happen, and negotiations may take place in a couple of months.


Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. On July 12 I attended, for the Government of Canada and on behalf of the Minister of Justice, the official opening of a magnificent and desperately needed extended care hospital in the riding of a Tory member who is not working hard-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a question of privilege-


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Order. Sit down.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing another Tory member who works damned hard.


Steve Eugene Paproski: We all work hard on this side.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The minister may recall that for the past six months I have been concerned about writs of assistance. The minister said in March he was having the entire question reviewed thoroughly and would consider amendments to legislation which allows writs of assistance to be granted. Since his position on Bill C-51 has blown to smithereens his former reputation, such as it was, as a civil libertarian, has the minister good news for us with respect to writs of assistance?
(Mr. Gillespie.]


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, my officials have been conducting the review I requested and informed me this week it has not yet been completed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Within what time frame does the minister anticipate announcing his intentions? The matter has been before the minister some six months. Surely he has had the opportunity to come to a decision on this fundamental question, writs of assistance.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to come to a decision until the review is completed, at which point changes either in policy or legislation can be decided. If legislative changes are contemplated they will be announced in the usual way in this House by way of the introduction of legislation.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. I gave him notice of it yesterday. It concerns the serious labour-management dispute between the Canadian Overseas Telecommunications Union and Teleglobe Canada. Some weeks ago the union took the unusual step, for a union, of asking for arbitration. Given that this union between 1950 and 1976 did not go on strike, relations being good, and given that Teleglobe Canada, a Crown corporation, has refused arbitration and said in a letter dated May 16, " ... we however feel that the area of disagreement is not such as to lend itself to arbitration" even though the strike is in its seventh week, what is the minister's department doing, and has the minister been able to consult with the Minister of Communications with whom I raised this issue some weeks ago?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of the question and advise him that within an hour or two I may have good news for him. The parties met until 3.30 this morning. A proposal has been approved, subject to ratification. It is going before the general membership now. Naturally, I hope they accept it.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Solicitor General may I direct my question to the parliamentary secretary? It is now five weeks since an all-party committee tabled in this House a report on penitentiaries and many members of that committee, of which the parliamentary secretary was one, are anxious to see action
July 15, 1977

taken on that report? When will the government respond to that report on penitentiaries? Who is assessing the report? One of the major recommendations of the report concerns the bureaucracy and structures which must be changed within the penitentiary system. Is any bureaucrat whom the report criticized involved in assessing the report which criticized him?


Mr. Art Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all hon. members will join with me in congratulating the Solicitor General for implementing one of the committee's recommendations yesterday by way of an amendment to Bill C-51. I refer to the concept of the independent chairman of disciplinary hearings. The minister is actively considering the matter and in due course the minister will inform the hon. member of his position.


REASON FOR FAILURE TO RESPOND TO RECOMMENDATION COMMITTEE MONITOR IMPLEMENTATION OF REPORT
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. That one recommendation, incorporated in Bill C-51, was one of the most minor in the report. The recommendation that an all-party committee have a continuing mandate to monitor the implementation of the report so that we can determine how fast it is being implemented is easy to comply with. Can the parliamentary secretary say why we have not had a response even to that simple recommendation which said that the justice subcommittee should have a continuing mandate to monitor the implementation of the report? Why are we refused that request?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Mr. Speaker, that is a subject matter for the House to deal with. The minister cannot presume what the House of Commons intends to do.


POSSIBILITY COMMISSIONER ASSESSING COMMITTEE REPORT
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. One of the committee's major and important recommendations concerned the role of the commissioner and the role of a board to manage the prison system. Is the commissioner, who was involved so intimately in this matter and whom the report criticized, assessing the report of the all-party committee? The parliamentary secretary did not answer my initial question. Are the members of the bureaucracy whom the report criticizes assessing the report which criticizes them? Is that the kind of response the Solicitor General will give us?


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered that question. I said the Solicitor General takes the report most seriously. The hon. member suggests that the introduction of the provision concerning the independent chairman of disciplinary hearings is a paltry one, but I should like him to ask those individuals facing disciplinary hearings in their penal institutions what they think of it. I think that will show you the serious way in which the
Oral Questions
Solicitor General approaches this whole matter. In due course he will make known his intentions to the hon. member and others in this House.


NATURAL GAS EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES-REQUEST FOR DETAILS OF SWAP ARRANGEMENT
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources arises from what he told the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands yesterday about gas contracts with the United States. I should like the matter to be made clear. I understand we have made a deal with the United States whereby we shall export so many thousand cubic feet of natural gas and get, in return, so many thousand cubic feet of natural gas. Are we to deal in dollars and cents, or in cubic feet of natural gas. If we export natural gas to the United States, because gas prices to consumers are rising will we receive in return an equivalent number of cubic feet of natural gas instead of dollars and cents?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands asked a hypothetical question.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The minister treats all questions, apparently, as hypothetical.


Alastair William Gillespie: He wondered what would be the government's approach to a particular situation which might develop. I tried to say as best I could that there is a possibility of swaps over time, which I think is the basis of the hon. member's question. The National Energy Board, in its report to the government tabled some ten days ago, raised this possibility. The details of any time swaps have not been worked out, but I think the principle of a time swap should be examined.
I recognize with the hon. member that we would want to protect the Canadian interests, as did the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, so that we would not be in the position of selling at today's prices, relatively cheap, a certain quantity of natural gas and then buying it back at a later date at a very much higher price. Obviously, that would not make any sense.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the minister in this regard. Is he saying to me, and I do not know whether the House appreciates this, that the deal is going to be on cubic feet of gas if Canada gives gas today and gets gas back from the United States? Will it be in cubic feet or in dollars and cents? That is what the consumer wants to know. Let us cut out the rhetoric.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, this has to be answered on the basis of a hypothetical question because we have not received

July 15, 1977
Oral Questions
any application for these kinds of swaps. The National Energy Board even raised the possibility of a time swap. I gave an answer which indicates we have to protect the Canadian consumer on the basis of true value. I cannot do more than that at the present time, other than to say we will look at any application which is considered by the National Energy Board. That is the process of elimination, as the hon. member must know.

[ Translation]


PROPOSED STUDY WITH UNITED STATES OF PRODUCT LAETRILE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the controversy concerning the pharmaceutical product called Laetrile used for the treatment of cancer, is the government cooperating with the Canadian Medical Association and the United States authorities to determine the medical and legal status of that product as far as its efficiency and its security is concerned.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Health and Welfare shares the views of American authorities and the Canadian Medical Association about the pharmaceutical product called Laetrile; to wit that there is nothing to indicate that the drug is effective or sure against cancer.
In addition, I would like to point out that we are in close contact with American authorities; indeed two of my officials recently were in Washington to discuss the matter with American authorities, but I can say to the hon. member that we have no reason to alter our position and we have no indication that Laetrile can be effective for individuals suffering from cancer.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. When Mr. Vogel retires as Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board, will the minister advertise across Canada for the best salesman available to replace him or will it be a cabinet appointment?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the legal provision requires an appointment by order in council. Obviously, we will search for the very best person if that vacancy does in fact occur.


Thomas Gordon Towers: In view of the continuing cheap verbal shots that the minister is firing at the Premier of Alberta concerning

the selling policies of the Canadian Wheat Board, and in view of the fact that the deputy premier of that province is a brother of the Minister without Portfolio, can the minister state whether or not he has discussed this issue with the latter and what his stand is on it?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not think we need to be concerned about any relationship with regard to these statements. I have not been making cheap shots in relation to the Premier of Alberta. What I have been doing is defending the Canadian Wheat Board against rather unfounded attacks by him. I would like members opposite in the Conservative party in this House to say whether they support the Canadian Wheat Board as a selling agency or want interference from provincial politicians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Will the right hon. member tell the House what discussions or consultations he has had in his role as an elder statesman of NATO with President Carter about the implication of the United States decision to proceed with the development of the neutron bomb.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: None, Mr. Speaker.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Does the Prime Minister support the development of the neutron bomb which appears to be in line with a philosophy that a limited nuclear war is possible, bearing in mind that acceptance of a limited nuclear war posture by NATO may itself have a destabilizing effect?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 have not analyzed the problem, Mr. Speaker.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my final supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence who recently attended a nuclear planning group in Ottawa for NATO. Is the government position now that our forces in Europe will not hold or display neutron bombs, although we have artillery equipment there capable of firing such weapons? If NATO accepts the nuclear limited philosophy, will our forces be dependent on other nations for this type of support?
July 15, 1977


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows we do not possess a nuclear capacity in NATO and have no intention of doing so. The consultations with reference to the neutron bomb have not taken place. I think the hon. member knows as much from the newspaper as I do on the neutron bomb per se.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In light of announcements last week which indicated that northern British Columbia and northern Alberta had been designated for DREE assistance, and information received in recent weeks concerning some additional $880 million in DREE funds payable to the province of Quebec, will the minister indicate when he will revise the formula by which areas qualify so that other parts of Canada with high unemployment problems can also benefit from the legislation?
[ Translation]


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, we did sign these agreements but I would like to correct the figure quoted by the hon. member- some $800 million in expenditures incurred in Quebec recently. I think that figure is somewhat exaggerated, to say the least. As to the assistance given by my department to other parts of Canada, as far as I know the entire province of Manitoba is designated for receiving our department assistance. We have signed several ancillary agreements with the government of Manitoba that are in effect and other negotiations are being held right now. But concerning the act that allows grants to companies, it is available to the province of Manitoba as a whole.


CONFEDERATION
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In answer to a question by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi on the possibility of a joint committee, the Prime Minister indicated that his reason for suggesting it was not appropriate was that we were near the end of the session. We hope that is so. Does the Prime Minister recall the commitment made by this party that, notwithstanding the fact that parliament may not be sitting, the members of this party are prepared to participate in such a committee because of the importance of the question of national unity, throughout the summer if necessary, and make a report? Is the Prime Minister concerned about the
Oral Questions
matter because of the unwillingness of members of his own party to dedicate the summer months to this matter or is there some other reason which the Prime Minister chose not to state in his answer to the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, the answer was for the reason I gave. As to people on this side promoting and concerning themselves with national unity, I know from various discussions I have had individually and with caucus that they are intending to do so during the course of the summer. The difference is they do not feel they need a prop from the other side in order to do it.


Walter David Baker: I have indicated the willingness on our side of the House. The Prime Minister has indicated there is no lack of willingness on the other side of the House. Therefore, I can only conclude that the Prime Minister has decided as a matter of policy to work through a bureaucracy that will report internally with respect to national unity ralher than involving all members of this House and the people of Canada on a continuing basis in that debate. If that is his attitude, it is reprehensible and should not be condoned in this country. Is the Prime Minister prepared to examine that attitude, one which I think is dreadful? Is he prepared to give the House a commitment that when we return in the fall the House will have an opportunity of aiding to the extent it can the bureaucracy which has not been established respecting national unity, a bureaucracy which has not been able to find a member to serve on behalf of one very important part of the nation, the province of Quebec? I think that says something. There are a number of members of this House from the province of Quebec who can perhaps make a contribution-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Walter David Baker: -so I suggest the Prime Minister think about that.


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I was a little concerned that the Prime Minister should state that it is the view of the government of Canada that parliament is a prop in looking at the question of national unity. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether it is the policy of the government of Canada that the House of Commons and the Senate of Canada should not be given a formal role to play through a special committee that can make continuing inquiries into the question of national unity and issue a public report. If it is not the policy of the government of Canada to rule out a continuing role for parliament, then why will the Prime Minister not establish a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons to inquire on a continuing basis into the problems of national unity?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe I gave the answer of the government in my answer to the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, when I indicated that it was not our view that we
7710

July 15, 1977
Oral Questions
should set up a committee now, just before the end of this part of the session.


Walter David Baker: You could do it tomorrow if you wanted to.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The House leader of the Tory party is willing to crowd in business all the time. We would take him as a man of his word if he were indeed able to deal with the business now before the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: We have done a little better than you have this session.


John Allen Fraser: If you keep on this will be your third speech in a year.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We did bring the issue of national unity before the House in a resolution, but the opposition had many, many days during which it could have brought up this subject if indeed it felt it to be important.
Returning to the question put by the Leader of the Opposition, I repeat that the possibility of having a joint parliamentary committee in the next session of parliament is not precluded, but we do not think that at this point in the session we should spend time setting up such a committee and debating it and asking it to operate for the remaining days of this part of the session.
As to the role of members on this side, all I meant was that they are self-starters. They do not have to feel supported by members of the opposition in concerning themselves with national unity. Hon. members opposite can be self-starters, too. You can do it if you try, boys.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister continues to play party games.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: He claims that he is worried about the time it would take. I can give him the guarantee of the official opposition that we would approve in a minute the establishment of a joint committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I want to suggest to the Prime Minister with all respect that it is not an adequate response to a question regarding policy to say that the government has not precluded the possibility of giving the Parliament of Canada, which is the only agency which can resolve this question, a continuing role to play in the discussions on this subject. I ask the Prime Minister as clearly as I can why he will not take the initiative now, which he knows will be supported by the House of Commons, and establish today a joint committee of this House and the other place to inquire on a continuing basis into questions of national unity. We are prepared to start work this summer; why is the Prime Minister not?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to hear from the Leader of the Opposition that he is prepared to start work on the problem of national unity.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Get off the arrogance. Shameful. You are a coward.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Next time we will break your arm.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Why don't you do it right after we come out of the House? Mr. Speaker, I consider that the opposition is in a somewhat contradictory position. They were just telling us last week that national unity is not just one simple subject, it is a matter of how parliament and government deal with the problems of the country. We consider that every day of the year we are dealing with the problems of national unity.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Lalonde says one thing in Quebec and another thing in western Canada. Hypocrites, traitors.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think they are a little "hyped up" over there; I will let them catch their cool and perhaps we will have some traditional questions.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that parliament and the people of Canada have become resigned to this kind of evasion and game playing on the part of the Prime Minister on most questions, but the question of the future of our country is too important for the Prime Minister to play games with.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: He pretends that he gives priority to resolving this problem. Why will the Prime Minister not demonstrate that priority and demonstrate the central role which parliament must play in resolving national questions in a way with which we agree by establishing a joint committee which will act now to give parliament a continuing role to inquire into the resolution of the problems of national unity which face the country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The second question is a repetition of the first.


EXPORT OF NATURAL GAS TO UNITED STATES-INQUIRY AS TO APPLICATIONS AND BASIS OF SWAP ARRANGEMENT
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who unfortunately has left the chamber, so I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary in the hope that he can cast some light on the problem raised by the hon. member for Calgary North. In answering the question from that member the minister said that the question I had asked
July 15, 1977

yesterday with respect to applications for the export of gas on a possible swap arrangement was hypothetical.
I should like to point out that yesterday's Globe and Mail definitely indicated that the TransCanada Pipelines has applied to the National Energy Board for a permit to export gas and to enter into swapping arrangements. Surely, this is not a hypothetical question. Can the parliamentary secretary tell the House if such applications have been made by Trans-Canada Pipelines and Pan-Alberta Gas? Has the government laid down any policy with respect to whether increased gas exports will be permitted and whether they will be on a swap basis? If they are on a swap basis, will it be on the quantity of gas or on the price of gas?


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the minister has already dealt with that question in answer to the question of the hon. member for Calgary North by saying that it was a hypothetical question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, surely that is a ridiculous answer. If the newspaper report is correct, the application is now before the National Energy Board. Surely the government, and particularly the minister and the parliamentary secretary, keep in touch with what is happening at the National Energy Board. Are such applications before the board? If so, has the government discussed with the chairman of the National Energy Board whether the government is in favour of increasing our exports of gas, and if so, on what basis?


Maurice Dupras: Mr. Speaker, it could very well be that the application is before the National Energy Board, but it does not mean it is before the minister.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows perfectly well I am not suggesting that the application is before the minister. I am assuming that in any well run government-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -a minister would keep in touch with the agencies for which he is responsible, in the same able way that he kept in touch with AECL and what it was doing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We should not get up some morning and find out that the National Energy Board has embarked upon a policy which will sell our scarce gas at cheap prices in return for buying back Alaskan gas at high prices. Surely we can be told whether such applications are before the board and what attitude the government is taking with respect to advising the board as to government policies in regard to the export of gas.
Report of Committee


Maurice Dupras: Mr. Speaker, I take the representation of the hon. member as notice.


Simma Holt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During the question period you prevented me from asking a question-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Sit down.


An hon. Member:: At least you can be polite.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: A female Mortimer Snerd.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Interference at any time, with any hon. member during the question period, is always a subject to which I am prepared to listen. I am always prepared to listen to any hon. member in circumstances in which a question has been put that might be subject to some different interpretation. I stopped the hon. member today on her preamble, and I will not hear her on either privilege or order with respect to that particular preamble.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Epp:: Mr. Speaker, you called my riding today in order that I might ask a question. After the intervention, you recognized the New Democratic Party. I am wondering whether it was an oversight, or what the reason was.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not recall the incident the hon. member is describing. Is he indicating that I called him and something else intervened?


An hon. Member:: Yes, it was his leader.


Mr. Speaker:: It was not an intentional oversight. I was attempting to balance the representation among the parties. I had the hon. member for Provencher on my list, and I would have recognized him. At the end of the question period, his House leader and the Leader of the Opposition sought the floor, which caused me to divert from the plan I had in mind at that time. They used the remainder of the question period on a very important subject, which unfortunately prevented me from completing the list of speakers in the official opposition, the next one of whom was the hon. member for Provencher.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration-Miss Nicholson.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
80020 -24.4
[Stage Direction]
July 15, 1977
Labour Education
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in regard to the bill which is included in the report that has just been tabled. As Your Honour knows, the way the rules are set up it would be technically possible for the government to ask the House to proceed on Monday with the report stage of Bill C-24. On previous occasions when this has happened on a Friday, Your Honour has taken the view that it is the clear intention of the rules that hon. members shall have one clear day in which to get copies of the reprinted bill and to draft and File their report stage amendments. 1 express the hope that that practice, which has been followed in the past when a bill has been tabled on Friday, will be followed in this case and that members will have until six o'clock on Monday to file their report stage amendments to Bill C-24, which has to do with immigration.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I assume there is no comment to the contrary, or other contributions to be made to the point of order. It is a valid one and one we have taken into consideration on previous occasions. Technically, the operation of Standing Order 75 dealing with report stage amendments would be such that the lapse of 48 hours would permit taking into consideration the report stage of the bill. Within that period, 24 hours would be set aside as a deadline for the filing of report stage amendments. Report stage amendments are a very important aspect of our proceedings with respect to any bill. When a bill is reported to the House on a Friday, as has been done this morning, the operation of that rule would permit, on the face of the language, taking into consideration the report stage of the bill beginning at three o'clock Monday afternoon, or as an order of the day on Monday.
If that were permitted, it would compress the time for the filing of report stage amendments, particularly on a bill of this scope and magnitude, effectively to five o'clock this afternoon or when the administration is able to receive such filings. It seems to me that would clearly frustrate the spirit of the rule, if not the letter of the rule.
The spirit of the rule is to give opportunities to hon. members to reason out their report stage amendments, which are very important aspects of the deliberation of a bill. Therefore, I have no hesitation in keeping with past practices and orders which I have made on previous occasions. I indicate that this bill ought not to be taken into consideration until Tuesday as an order of the day, which will give hon. members an opportunity until six o'clock on Monday to prepare and file report stage amendments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TABLING OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN CANADIAN LABOUR CONGRESS AND GOVERNMENT RESPECTING LABOUR EDUCATION
John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table, in both official languages, the report on the

agreement between the Canadian Labour Congress and the government with respect to labour education, which I was requested to do some time ago.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD TABLING OF REFERENCES TO ADMINISTRATOR
Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), and on behalf of the Minister of Finance, I should like to table, in both official languages, two references from the Anti-Inflation Board to the administrator, pursuant to subsection 17(2) of the Anti-Inflation Act, one dealing with Alberta Government Telephones, and the other dealing with St. Boniface school division No. 4, on executive employees.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 749, 754, 812, 1,169, 1,529, 1,898, 2,313, 2,337, 2,363, 2,541 and 2,751.


Mr. Stevens: 1.	What was the total expenditure for (a) furniture and fixtures (b) decorative plants and wall accessories for the Department of Finance offices in Place Bell Canada?
2.	(a) For which items were the contracts awarded for decorating (b) to whom were the contracts awarded (c) what was the amount?
3.	What is the average expenditure per employee for furniture and fixtures?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Departments of Finance and Public Works as follows: 1. (a) $1,669,668. This amount is the aggregate amount purchased between FY 1971-72 and FY 1976-77. It includes: Furniture, $638,843; Fixtures including wall partitions, lighting fixtures, door frames, doors, drapes and blinds $832,400; Wall units and filing equipment, $198,425; Total expenditures for a six year period, $1,669,668. (b) Decorative plants, including maintenance and replacements, $58,000.; Wall accessories, $2,700.
2.	(a) Contracts were awarded for all items of decorating, (b) (i) Decorative Plants: Fines Flowers Ltd. Eric Jensen Greenhouses Limited (ii) Wall accessories: Olympia & York Developments Limited, (c) (i) $45,000; $13,000. (ii) $2,700.
3.	Furniture, $778.13; Fixtures, $1,013.88; Wall units and filing equipment $241.69; Total, $2,033.70. The information covers expenditures since occupancy of Place Bell Canada in
July 15, 1977

fiscal year 1971-72, including initial set-up costs for furniture conforming to the design of the building. Thus the average expenditure per employee relates to the six fiscal years from 1971-72 to 1976-77. The amount of $832,400 for fixtures include fixtures used by Joint Administrative Services which serves the Treasury Board Secretariat.


Mr. Stevens: 1.	What was the total expenditure for (a) furniture and fixtures (b) decorative plants and wall accessories for the Treasury Board offices in Place Bell Canada?
2.	(a) For which items were the contracts awarded for decorating (b) to whom were the contracts awarded (c) what was the amount?
3.	What is the average expenditure per employee for furniture and fixtures?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Department of Public Works as follows: 1. (a) $1,217,895. This amount is the aggregate amount purchased between FY 71/72 and FY 76/77. It includes: furniture, $609,470; fixtures including wall partitions, lighting fixtures, telephones, door frames, doors, drapes and blinds, $410,000; wall units and filing equipment, $198,425; total expenditure for a six year period, $1,217,895. (b) Decorative plants, including maintenance and replacements, $55,000; wall accessories, $2,900.
2.	(a) Contracts were awarded for all items of decorating, (b) (i) Decorative Plants: Fine Flowers Ltd., Eric Jensen Greenhouses Fimited. (ii) Wall accessories: Olympia and York Developments Fimited. (c) (i) $45,000; $10,000. (ii) $2,900.
3.	Furniture, $729.03; fixtures, $490.43; wall units and filing equipment, $237.35; total, $1,456.81. The information covers expenditures since occupancy of Place Bell Canada in fiscal year 1971-72, including initial set-up costs for furniture conforming to the design of the building. The average expenditure was arrived at by dividing the total expenditure for the six fiscal years from 1971-72 to 1976-77 by the current population.


Mr. McGrath: 1.	Did Hamilton contractor Mr. Dominic Morganti apply for CMHC funding for a low rental housing project at (a) Main Place, Main Street West (b) York Place, Queen Street North, Hamilton, Ontario and, if so, on what date?
2.	Were Mr. Morganti's applications (a) turned down by CMHC and, if so, for what reasons (b) accepted by CMHC and, if so, what were the arrangements?
3.	What are the names of the CMHC officials who made the decisions affecting the financing of the projects?
4.	What is the name of the solicitor for Mr. Morganti who negotiated with CMHC?
5.	What were the amounts and dates of the advances of all monies made by CMHC to Mr. Morganti from the time CMHC approved the initial loan until CMHC foreclosed on York Place?
Order Paper Questions
6.	Were any requests for additional funds for Mr. Morganti for York Place (a) refused and, if so, on what dates (b) accepted by CMHC and, if so (i) in what amounts (ii) on what dates were they approved (iii) what were the details of CMHC's arrangements with Mr. Morganti?
7.	Which officials had the ultimate authority for approving the additional amounts granted to Mr. Morganti for York Place?
8.	Were there any liens or claims on York Place prior to the additional funds being approved and/or advances being made on the original amount and/or advances being made on the additional amounts approved and, if so, what are the details?
9.	(a) What are the names of the solicitors who acted for CMHC with regard to York Place (b) what other work have they done for CMHC and what amount was paid to each (c) are there any claims by CMHC against them and, if so, what are the grounds (d) did the same solicitors work for any other Crown corporation, department or agency and, if so, which Crown corporation, department or agency and what was the amount paid in fees to each?
10.	Did CMHC, at any time, receive complaints or protests from any sub-contractors that they were not being paid for their work at York Place and, if so, what action, if any, was taken?
11.	Was York Place ever used as collateral on Main Place and, if so, what are the details?
12.	From the time the first monies were advanced by CMHC to Mr. Morganti for York Place, did CMHC rank as first mortgage holder in all respects until the time CMHC foreclosed on York Place and, if not, what are the details?
13.	Is the mortgage on York Place held by Messrs. Saul Kelner and James Leibel and, if so, what are the details?
14.	How much does CMHC estimate it will cost to finish York Place?
15.	What is the current assessed value of York Place?
16.	Is CMHC satisfied that all the funds approved and advanced to York Place were actually used in York Place?
17.	At the time CMHC foreclosed on York Place, what percentage of it was occupied by tenants?
18.	At the time York Place first began to accept tenants, was CMHC satisfied with the standards of work throughout the building and, if not, what are the details?
19.	Has CMHC received any complaints about the standard of work throughout York Place from officials or authorities representing provincial and/or municipal bodies or agencies and, if so, what are the details of such complaints?
20.	As of this date, what is Mr. Morganti's financial and legal relationship with York Place?
21.	Does Mr. Morganti hold an undischarged mortgage on York Place and, if so, what are the details?
22.	Have there been any charges laid against any officials of CMHC with regard to improper acts relating to the construction of York Place and, if so, what are the details?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: 1
am advised as follows by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation: 1. (a) CMHC received an application from Main Place of Hamilton Limited on March 7, 1972 for a student housing loan under Section 47 of the National Housing Act. (b) CMHC received an application for a loan under Section 15, NHA from York Place (Hamilton) Limited on November 4, 1971. The name of the company has since been changed to York Place of Hamilton Inc.
2. (a) The application from Main Place of Hamilton Limited was rejected. The reason for the refusal is not known, the file having been destroyed since the retention period for an unapproved application had elapsed, (b) A loan was approved to York Place of Hamilton Inc. under Section 15 of the NHA. The arrangements included the standard operating agreement used at that time on projects financed under Section 15.

July 15, 1977
Order Paper Questions
3.	Under the procedures in force at the time this loan was approved, the Executive Committee of CMHC gave the final authorization for financing the project, with the commitment to the sponsor being issued by the Manager, Hamilton Office.
4.	Solicitors for Mr. Morganti were not involved in the negotiations on the original loan application. Mr. John C. Pelech was involved in making submissions on behalf of Mr. Morganti with respect to the two loan increases.
5.	CMHC makes advances on its direct loans jointly to its solicitors and the borrower, but details of mortgage transactions are considered to be privileged information between borrower and lender.
6.	(a) A request for an increase on the loan was refused on June 10, 1976. (b) (i) and (ii) An increase of $475,000 was approved on August 27, 1973, and a second increase of $1,054,500 was approved on December 13, 1974. (iii) These increases were subject to the retention of sufficient funds at all times by CMHC to ensure the completion of the project, and the first mortgage to include the personal convenant of Mr. Morganti.
7.	See answer to 3 above.
8.	Yes, any liens or claims of which CMHC had knowledge were either satisfied at the time the advances were released by its solicitor, or the names of the lien holders or claimants were added as payees to the advance cheques.
9.	(a) The solicitor who was acting on behalf of CMHC for the mortgage on York Place of Hamilton Inc. was Stanley F. Dudzic. (b) Mr. Dudzic has handled the mortgage documentation for seven other loans for CMHC, where the borrowers paid the legal fees, (c) CMHC has not made any claims on Mr. Dudzic. (d) CMHC is not aware of any work which Mr. Dudzic may have received from federal departments or agencies or from other Crown corporations.
10.	Yes, see answer to 8 above.
11.	CMHC is not aware of the York Place of Hamilton Inc. project being used as collateral for Main Place of Hamilton Limited.
12.	CMHC's solicitor was authorized to make the advances on the loan, subject to his establishing that " ... there are no claims having priority over our mortgage". The solicitor was, therefore, responsible for ensuring that each advance was a first charge.
13.	No.
14.	The current estimate of $1.2 million, as the cost of completing York Place, is based on a report prepared by an engineering consultant retained by the Receiver appointed by the Supreme Court of Ontario.
15.	The municipality carries a current assessed value on its assessment role of $960,139 for York Place.
16.	No.
17.	When foreclosure action on York Place was begun, 70 per cent of the first tower was occupied, and it was not possible

for tenants to occupy the second tower since it was still under construction.
18.	Yes.
19.	No.
20.	Mr. Morganti's financial relationship with York Place is as a mortgagee and as a guarantor, and his legal relationship with York Place is as an officer of York Place of Hamilton Inc.
21.	The Abstract of Title discloses that Mr. Morganti holds two mortgages on York Place, one of which was registered on May 2, 1973 in a principal amount of $95,000 and the second registered on November 2, 1973 in a principal amount of $160,000.
22.	No.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	Was a mortgage(s) granted by York Place of Hamilton Inc., to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation against a parcel of land of approximately 2.89 acres in the block bounded by York, Queen, Greig, Barton and Oxford Streets being municipally known as 151 Queen Street South, in the City of Hamilton, Ontario and, if so (a) what were the dates and amounts of all advances made under the mortgage(s) (b) what other payments were made by CMHC that constituted a charge against the property (c) as of August 12, 1976, what was the total amount of interest accrued and unpaid and how was this amount calculated (d) was an increase of (i) $475,000 granted in the face value in 1973 (ii) $1,054,500 granted in January, 1975 and, if so, in each case, for what reason (e) were previous applications for increases in the mortgage amount rejected and, if so, for what reason?
2.	In what state of completion are the buildings located on the parcel of land described in Part 1?
3.	What is the estimated cost of completing the building, appurtenances and amenities on the said parcel of land?


André Ouellet: am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: 1. Yes. (a) See answer to Question 812 answered this day. (b) CMHC paid $37,338.86 on April 15, 1976 to the Corporation of the City of Hamilton for arrears of Realty Taxes, (c) To and including August 12, 1976, accrued and unpaid interest amounted to $1,599,066. The interest has been calculated on the amount of each advance from the date of the advance to and including August 12, 1976, at IV2 per cent compounded semi-annually, (d) (i) Yes (ii) Yes; see answer Question 812 answered this day. (e) No.
2.	As of November 4, 1976, Tower A was 100 per cent complete, and Tower B was approximately 88 per cent complete with the exception of certain amenities, underground parking and necessary repairs.
3.	See answer to Question 812 answered this day.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the Department of the Secretary of State obtained (a) part-time (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia
July 15, 1977

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


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: 1.
		1975/76	1976/77
(0	British		
	Columbia	(a) 2	10
		(b)0	0
(ii)	Alberta	(a) 9	8
		(b)0	0
(iii)	Saskatchewan	(a) 10	10
		(b) 0	0
(iv)	Manitoba	(a) 12	7
		(b) 0	0
(v)	Ontario	(a) 12	7
		(a) and (b) Our records	Our records provide
		cannot provide	information from August
		information	2, 1976 (a) 173; (b) 19
(vi)	Quebec	(a) 30	Unable to separate figures by fiscal year
		(b) 0	
(vii)	New Brunswick	(a) 4	6
		(b) 0	0
(viii)	Nova Scotia	(a) 7	14
		(b) 0	0
(ix)	Prince Edward	(a) 0	0Island	(b) 0	0(x)	Newfoundland	(a) 3	3(b) 0	02.	Individuals employed in this manner are paid from funds provided by annual appropriation, normally Main Estimates.
3.
(a) Average	hr/rate Agencies	(b) Average hr/rate Employees	1975/76	1976/77	1975/76	1976/77British Columbia	$5.44	$5.95	$3.67	$3.97Alberta	6.23	5.77	*	*Saskatchewan	5.55	5.87	*	*Manitoba	5.30	5.75	*	[DOT]Ontario	*	6.10 (approx.)	*	[DOT]Quebec	*	5.20 (approx.)	*	$4.00 (approx.)New Brunswick	$5.40	5.50	$4.00	4.45Nova Scotia	5.80	6.25	4.00	4.45Prince Edward Island	-	-	-	
Newfoundland	6.00	7.00	4.00	4.45
[DOT]unavailable
(c) (i) Fiscal year 1975-76; Newfoundland, $1,100; Prince Edward Island, -; Nova Scotia, $3,455; New Brunswick; $2,100; Quebec, $44,158; Ontario (includes departmental HQ), $725,930; Manitoba $17,882; Saskatchewan, $4,782; Alberta, $18,006; British Columbia, $2,230; Total $819,643; (ii) Fiscal year 1976-77 (To January 31, 1977) Newfoundland, $1,486; Prince Edward Island, -; Nova Scotia, $7,665; New Brunswick, $2,889; Quebec, $3,529; Ontario (includes departmental HQ), $411,540; Manitoba, $3,486; Saskatchewan, $1,139; Alberta, $3,829; British Columbia, $1,897; Total, $437,460.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Has the government received any representations concerning the legislation on the National Anthem of Canada in relation to the changing of the word "native" to "cherished" so that the phrase would be "our home and cherished land"?
2.	What is the government's intention to ensure a quick and early passage of the bill?


Ralph Goodale: 1. To the best of our knowledge the government has received no representations to change the word "native" to "cherished" in Bill C-10 concerning the National Anthem of Canada.
2. The government invites assurances from the opposition parties that there would not be prolonged debate on this bill when it is called; up to now, no such assurances have been forthcoming.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton): Is it the intention of the government to close down the Public Service Training Centre at Kemptville, Ontario, and, if so, what plans are being made to absorb into the Public Service, in other areas, the thirty-three (33) employees who work there?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: On December 2, 1976, the Public Service Commission advised the Department of Public Works that it did not intend to continue use of the Training Centre in Kemptville, Ontario after April 1, 1977. Only one employee was affected by this decision. She has since taken a position with the Public Service Commission in Ottawa. The Commission's course directors were assigned for the periods of the courses only; their permanent worksite was in Ottawa. The Commission also had contracts with the catering firm of Crawley McCracken and the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires for purposes of security. The catering firm generally employed up to seven people, and there were two or three men employed for the security work during two shifts daily and over the weekends.


Mr. Stevens: As of December 31 (a) 1968 (b) 1976, how many federal employees were charged with policy-making, or interpretation of policies, regulating interprovincial trade and commerce?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: The Department does not regulate interprovincial trade and commerce as such and therefore does not have any employees charged with the development or interpretation of policies relating to the regulation of interprovincial trade and commerce.

July 15, 1977
Order Paper Questions


Mr. O'Sullivan: For each year since 1972, what is the name and address of each lawyer and law firm in the Constituency of (a) Hamilton-Wentworth (b) Hamilton West (c) Hamilton East (d) Hamilton Mountain (e) Halton-Wentworth (0 Halton (g) Lincoln (h) St. Catharines, who performed services for the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission and, in each case, what was the total amount paid?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Department of Justice and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission as follows: Nil.


Mr. Robinson: What was the average increase in salaries given to department heads and deputies in the Public Service in each year 1970 to 1977?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: For the purpose of lesponding to the hon. member's question, it is understood that the information required is the amount of the increases in the salary ranges for Deputy Ministers and Assistant Deputy Ministers in each year 1970 to 1977. Table I following represents the increase in the mid-point of the Deputy Minister salary ranges, by dollars and by percentage in each year 1970 to 1977. Assistant Deputy Minister positions are classified at the Senior Executive or equivalent levels. Table II following represents the increase in the Senior Executive salary ranges, by dollars and by percentage in each year 1970 to 1977.
Table I
Department Heads
Effective date	$ increase	per cent increaseJanuary 1, 1970	2,280	6.86January 1, 1971	3,054	8.65January 1, 1971	2,850	7.38January 1, 1973	3,716	9.03April 1, 1974	4,045	8.98April 1, 1975	4,050	8.561976	No increase1977	A decision regarding the Fifth Report of the Advisory Group on Executive Compensation in the Public Service has not been made.
Table II
Increases in the mid-point of the Senior Executive salary ranges, by dollars and by percentage for the years 1970 to 1977.
SX-1	SX-2	SX-3	SX-4	$	%	$	%	$	%	$	%1970	1,250	5.9	1,000	4.3	1,000	3.8	1,500	4.91971	1,250	5.6	1,750	7.1	2,250	8.3	2,500	7.81972	1,250	5.3	1,750	6.7	2,250	7.7	2,500	7.21973	1,750	7.0	2,250	8.0	2,750	8.7	2,750	7.41974	2,250	8.4	2,750	9.1	3,250	9.5	3,250	8.21975	3,000 10.3	3,500	10.6	4,000	10.7	4,500	10.5Actual	salaries	have	veen	frozen	since	December 18,	1975
There have been no range changes in 1976 or 1977.

The effective date of salary range changes in the years 1970 to 1973 inclusive was January 1. In 1974 and 1975 the effective date was April 1.


Mr. Smith (Churchill): 1.	What is the estimated amount of the appropriated and Band funds to be managed by Indian Bands this fiscal year and what will be the increase over 1976-77?
2.	When a Band takes over a programme does the Department retain the man-years and are these man-years redistributed and, if so, what is the rationale for retaining the man-years rather than freeing the monies tied up with these positions for Band use?


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. In relation to appropriated funds managed by Bands, the 1977-78 Estimates reflect $165.7 million, the related expenditures for 1976-77 amounted to $143.7 million. The estimated increase over 1976-77 is $22.0 million. An additional amount of $9.1 million was expended in 1976-77 for F.L.I.P. operated by Bands. There is no available information for F.L.I.P. for 1977-78. Band Funds managed by Bands in 1976-77 amounted to $47.5 million. The 1977-78 information is not estimated or known at this time.
2. The decision to permit a band to administer a particular program that was formerly managed by the Department, is in many cases made on a band by band basis. That is, an individual analysis of the band's capability to manage the program is made. If some, but not all of the bands assume responsibility for a particular programme, the net effect on the overall workload of the department is marginal. It must also be noted that very often the type of work rather than the volume of work is the significant result of the change. In many situations while the day-to-day operations role is reduced, the departmental role vis-a-vis monitoring is increased. The resulting overall workload is not as a result significantly reduced. Over the past few years the Indian Affairs Program has reduced its total man years from 6,878 to 6,021 while at the same time expanding the number of employees in certain programs and reducing others.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
July 15, 1977



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-17, respecting the reorganization of Air Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Mr. Speaker:: There are nine motions on the notice paper to amend Bill C-17. Motions 1, 2 and 3 stand in the name of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), and I gather they could be grouped for debate. However, the Chair has some concern about the procedural regularity of motion No. 3, which would appear to be defective in that it goes beyond the scope of the clause which it seeks to amend, that is, clause 6 which deals with the capacities and activities of the corporation and, more particularly, in subclause (4) with the establishment of subsidiaries. Essentially, the proposition contained in subclause (4) is that the corporation shall not do certain things without the authorization of the governor in council. But motion No. 3 seeks to import a new proposition by adding the concept of public hearings and publication, which are not part of clause 6.
1 would, of course, be prepared to hear argument on that point when we come to it. However, I want to advise hon. members also that clauses 4 to 9, inclusive, could be grouped for debate but would be voted upon separately if necessary. So there would be, essentially, two groups of votes and separate votes, if necessary, on each of the motions in the second group.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is certainly agreeable to members on this side of the House. Perhaps the government will be disposed to accept motion No. 1 and, if so, motion No. 3 might be answered in part. So we shall be able to deal with the thrust of motions Nos. 1 and 2 and perhaps, with the permission of hon. members, we might be able to broaden the debate sufficiently to include argument having to do with motion No. 3. However, I am optimistic that the government will have second thoughts about motion No. 1. Hopefully, they will accept it-and that would be satisfactory to us.


Mr. Speaker:: For the moment, then, the House might launch into a discussion of motions Nos. 1 and 2 with the idea that some reference of an explanatory nature might be made to the substance of motion No. 3. But 1 shall not put the question on motion No. 3 at this time. After discussion has been concluded on motions Nos. 1 and 2, it might be necessary for the Chair to hear further argument and make a decision with respect to motion No. 3. For the moment, then, the discussion is on motions Nos. 1 and 2, both in the name of the hon. member for Vegreville, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski).


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Motion No. 1.
Air Canada
That Bill C-17, respecting the reorganization of Air Canada, be amended in clause 6 by striking out line 25 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor: "vehicles necessarily or incidental to movements by air freight into or within Canada, and in compliance with highway transport regulations in each province, and facilities for the transport-"
Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-17, respecting the reorganization of Air Canada, be amended in clause 6
(a)	by striking out lines 14 to 17 at page 3;
(b)	by striking out lines 18 to 21 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) For the purpose of carrying out the activities referred to in subsection (1), the corporation has the capacity, rights, powers, privileges, duties and obligations of a natural person." and by renumbering subclause 4 as subclause 3.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as you correctly pointed out, the three motions which I have proposed, two of which we are now debating, are closely related, so we on this side welcome the idea of discussing the contents of the motions as one. The bill to reorganize Air Canada is one which we in our party have welcomed. The legislation serves to broaden the scope of the activities of the corporation.
Clause 6(1) outlines the capacities and the activities of the corporation. Clause 6(1 )(i) is an umbrella or catch-all provision enabling the corporation to do such other things as are necessary or incidental to the carrying out of its activities. Then we go to clause 6(2) which gives the governor-in-counsel power to authorize the corporation to engage in or carry on activities not otherwise authorized by the act. So the powers which it is suggested should be delegated to the corporation and to the governor in council are extremely broad and discretionary. It is for this reason 1 have moved motion No. 1.
There is a great deal of concern with respect to the possibility of Air Canada engaging in trucking activities for hire beyond its primary purpose. The scope of the activities and capacities suggested in the bill has given rise to a great deal of concern among those engaged in the trucking industry, an industry which is essentially in private hands and which is represented by well over 13,000 individual business entrepreneurs. At a time when we are placing a great deal of emphasis on the needs of small business and trying to develop a policy which will maintain and foster the strenght of small business in this country, it is necessary to take every precaution to ensure that this important section of our economy is preserved and that nothing is done which will undermine the capacity of small business enterprises to survive, grow, and participate fully in the nation's economic life.
1 believe the bill is weak in that it fails to provide sufficient protection to the trucking industry. We know that Air Canada has become a competitor with the for-hire trucking industry in the movement of goods of high value between metropolitan centres. Competition between plane and truck already exists on a trans-continental basis. I am told the service between Toronto and Vancouver is such that straight air cargo shipments do not arrive at their destination any quicker than those sent by the expedited trans continental trucking service now provided. It is anticipated that as progress is made there will be increased scope for intermodal competition between air-

July 15, 1977
Air Canada
plane and truck wherever quality of service implications and especially the guarantee of rapid delivery, are important to the shipper and the consignee.
The concern of the trucking industry is that the bill does not adequately protect and enhance the economic benefits to be gained from intermodal competition, and that by failing to do so Air Canada might be disposed or persuaded at some time to engage in surface transport such as for-hire trucking on the routes which are presently served by air freight. Certainly, it is air freight that is primarily the corporation's responsibility in the movement of freight. The fact that Air Canada has reorganized its corporate structure to give greater responsibility and autonomy to its freight division highlights the emphasis which Air Canada is placing on freight movement, and also, I might say, serves to highlight the concerns that the truckers have expressed.
The evidence presented in committee by the president of Air Canada indicated that he was optimistic about the future of air freight. He emphasized the buoyancy of the air freight division, and for that reason a separate and identifiable branch of the corporation is being established. The truckers believe that genuine air freight will come under increasing direct truck competition, and that because of the cost and service implications on some routes Air Canada may find itself under great pressure to try to do the same thing as the for-hire trucking industry so as to retain what they consider to be their fair share of freight volume and to protect their hold on that element of their business.
The assurances which the president of Air Canada has given, to the effect that genuine air freight will go to the truckers, are not well founded. They believe-and I tend to concur-that there will be a growing requirement in this country for express freight service on high valued goods. But that does not necessarily mean, given the experiences we have had over the last five years, that this service will be provided primarily by air. As I said earlier, we have clear examples of one trucking firm at least offering expedited service on a regular basis between Toronto and Vancouver and, in terms of time and cost, it is outperforming air freight. So with this kind of competition, and if the airline is determined to exploit the air freight sector, it could very well find itself using trucks on many intercity routes.
In my view, there is nothing in Bill C-17 which effectively prohibits or even limits the ability of Air Canada to engage in for-hire trucking, either in substitution for existing air freight service through trucks owned directly by the corporation or acquiring such entities from existing for-hire trucking companies. I submit that there is no valid reason for Crown corporations functioning in the rail or air mode to engage in for-hire trucking in competition with the primary function of the corporation.
To reiterate, the for-hire trucking industry has proved to be one mode where private enterprise has been successful in providing an adequate service and effective competition in

practically all parts of the country. The trucking industry has done an excellent job in providing service to all parts of the country, despite some formidable obstacles, despite some difficulties in terms of variations of rules and regulations applied from province to province, despite climatic conditions and the realities of our geography.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) has stated that limitations and safeguards exist in clause 6(1 )(b) and clause 6(4). Regardless of the present intent of the minister and his officials, or indeed the assurances of Air Canada management, the so-called safeguards contained in the act are vague and, I suggest, meaningless if one looks at the CNR experience. I want to deal with that for a moment, because I think it is totally relevant to the issue which we are now discussing. Since 1952, CNR has acquired or set up trucking subsidiaries which make it one of the largest for-hire truck undertakings in the country. Section 27 of the CNR act restricts CNR's ability to engage in motor vehicle operation to the extent that such investments have to be operated in conjunction with or in substitution for rail services. But if we look at the operations of the CNR trucking industry today, we find that CNR's network of for-hire trucking operation parallels their mainline trans-continental rail operations. So the spirit and thrust of the act do not really apply. In my view, that was obviously not the intent and spirit of section 27, so it has been circumvented- there can be no question about that-and 1 share the truckers' concern that the safeguards in the bill are no more substantial than those contained in the CNR act.
Section 31 of the CNR act states that CN may acquire any company or any business incidental to the working of a railway, or any business that, in the opinion of the board of directors, may be carried on in the interest of CNR, with the approval of the governor in council. There is enough latitude there for the CNR to engage in the trucking subsidiary, as it has done. When the for-hire trucking industry challenged CN's authority, they were rebuffed by the court. The Quebec court of appeal found, among other things, that governor in council approval of these expenditures, plus the CNR finance and security act, superseded any legislative limitation contemplated in section 27 of the CNR act. Furthermore, the fact that governor in council approval was given rendered provincial public hearings useless. If the governor in council considered it to be in the public interest to approve such an acquisition, the provincial boards simply followed suit and the hearing process became useless and provided no element of protection.
It is assumed that governor in council approval is always within the public interest and, therefore, the provincial regulatory bodies would assume the acquisition as a fait accompli. As I said before, regardless of the intent of the Minister of Transport and the president of Air Canada that such an experience would not occur again, these promises, I submit, are of a short-term nature. If that assurance is to be provided and if the minister is sincere-and I believe he is-I see no reason why that protection should not be enshrined in the legislation. We have a habit of moving ministers around, and
July 15, 1977

while this minister may place one interpretation on the act, another minister may take a different view. I think the minister has a tremendous amount of power in influencing his cabinet colleagues with regard to an acquition of that nature. The present wording of clause 6(1) is as follows:
The corporation may-
(b) buy, sell, lease, construct or otherwise acquire, dispose of and maintain and operate as necessary or incidental to the operation of the corporation's business, aircraft, hotels and other accommodation, surface vehicles and facilities for the transportation and housing of persons, goods and mail;-
I want to draw attention to the words "corporation's business". 1 think that under the existing act the definition of "corporation's business" is vague, misleading and open to interpretation. What we are really concerned about is that when we refer to air freight we know there is designated air freight which never sees the inside of an aeroplane. The concern here is that under the present loose wording of the act, Air Canada should very easily engage in the utilization of trucks on intercity routes presently served by air freight on the basis that it is incidental to the over-all operations of the corporation's business on a national basis.
The amendment which we have proposed would only serve to confirm the assurances the minister has given in this House and in committee that Air Canada's involvement in the trucking industry will be limited to that which is necessary or incidental to the operation of the corporation's business. I reiterate that the assurance which has been given by the minister should be enshrined and clearly stated in the legislation. Suspicions that if this amendment is rejected, Air Canada would encroach, are based upon statements made by Mr. Taylor to the effect that he sees a very bright future for the movement of air freight, but he is very careful to designate whether that freight will be moving by aircraft or by truck.
We have absolutely no objection to Air Canada's engaging in the movement of highly-valued freight and delivering it by truck as part and parcel of its air cargo service, but to allow Air Canada to engage in intercity trucking and for-hire operations is something to which I object. As a Crown corporation created by parliament to fulfil a particular purpose, to be in a position to opt out of that prime responsibility with facility when faced with competition, in a sense Air Canada is picking the taxpayers' pockets and buying up competition from another mode in order to engage in a business for which Air Canada was not, clearly, given a specific mandate by parliament.
When a Crown corporation determines that its economic well-being requires encroachment into an area outside the scope of its enabling legislation, the matter is first broached with Transport Canada officials who are responsible for air administration on a day to day basis, and support from this source, nine times out of ten, is tantamount to approval in principle in accordance with clause 6(4) which says, "The corporation shall not, without the authorization, by order, of the Government in Council." Then it goes on to outline the
Air Canada
number of areas in which the corporation is governed in terms of the authority granted to it by order in council.
What bothers us further is what we will see developing in the transportation industry over the next decade. Rapidly rising costs may affect one mode to a greater extent than another, and where service characteristics are similar, such as they are between air and truck in many cases, the lower cost mode may become overwhelmingly attractive. If increases in fuel costs should have a greater impact on the air mode than on the trucking mode, possibly trucking will acquire a significantly greater cost advantage over air freight than at present. The tendency of a Crown corporation, like any company, is to move into new and more attractive fields rather than to wither away. The CN is a clear example of that. The difference is that a Crown corporation does not face the same financial constraints as private enterprise, regardless of any limitation to its mandate. In my view, Air Canada should not have the facility to involve the federal government further by way of direct investment in for-hire trucking in order to stay in the freight business. As a minimum, something more than the presently contemplated review procedure in clause 6(4) should be contained in this legislation. That is really the thrust of my second motion, failing the adoption of motion No. 1. As a minimum it seems logical that an effective review procedure should be inserted in the bill to provide sufficient notice for any intended acquisitions of existing trucking firms or the creation of new ones.
What is even more distressing to the largely private trucking industry are the implications of clause 6(2) when combined with the principal thrust of Bill C-33, the new National Transportation Act. Particularly, section 3(1) and section 3(2) of that act give the minister very broad discretionary powers to the point of almost dictating what mode of service shall be used to ship a given item to a given point. That kind of unorthodox power is frightening. For example, the minister can inquire into the relationship between the various modes of transport within, to and from Canada. The minister can undertake measures to achieve co-ordination in the operation, development, regulation and control of those various modes of transport. That is provided in section 3(3)(b). Section 3(1 )(c) provides:
-and it is further declared that achievement of the objective of the transport policy for Canada requires the integration of services employing the most appropriate modes for each service and that it is the responsibility of governments to attend to the provision of the transportation system.
Those are very broad powers in terms of intermodal integration. Under the provisions of the National Transportation Act which are contemplated, the minister will be able to issue directions to the Canadian Transport Commission, which is the regulatory body, so we really have a nullification of the Canadian Transport Commission under the provisions of Bill C-33. To me, that is overkill in the strongest and strangest sense that I have ever seen in this House. If, in fact, the governor in council should approve a trucking acquisition, this would have the effect of section 27 of the National Transportation Act, which provides for a review procedure, being redundant, thus giving the affected truckers no avenue for an

July 15, 1977
Air Canada
adequate hearing. Surely, as a minimum, adequate provisions for review should be established in the event an acquisition takes place or a new enterprise is established.
Short of an outright prohibition against the purchase of shares or other interests in for-hire trucking undertakings, I believe governor in council sanctions should not be exercised unless or until interested parties have been given notice and have had the opportunity to comment to the Minister of Transport. The minister will turn around and say that this still has to be approved by provincial regulatory bodies. I say that before any government orders in council approve the acquisition of or the establishment of a for-hire trucking enterprise, adequate notice should be given to the industry, because to allow this to lay in the hands of provincial regulatory bodies is not sufficient, and there would not be sufficient time, in many cases, for the trucking industry adequately to prepare and study all the consequences and implications of a move such as that.
To my mind, inclusion of such a provision would not create a hardship since, pursuant to section 27 of the National Transportation Act and provincial highway transport board requirements dealing with mergers and acquisitions, Air Canada would have to give notice of acquisition for the purpose of allowing interested parties to object before the various regulatory tribunals. The difference is-and I repeat this-that governor in council approval is how the issue is usually resolved.
Past experience reveals that, pursuant to section 27 of the National Transportation Act, when orders in council are given it is assumed that approval becomes a fait accompli, and to a large extent the provincial boards abdicate their review responsibility. I would hope the minister would seriously consider motion No. 1. I know he will say to the House that there are sufficient assurances and guarantees to allay the fears I have been expressing.
I respectfully submit that the close examination I have given this legislation, and the examination that has been so thoroughly conducted by the Canadian Trucking Association, show that there is not sufficient protection in the bill to assure the truckers of a fair chance to engage in dialogue with the minister before any acquisition is made or a trucking enterprise is created under the aegis of Air Canada.
I should like now to deal briefly with motion No. 2 which has the effect of striking out the following:
The governor in council may, by order, authorize the corporation to engage in or carry on any activities not otherwise authorized by this act.
I propose this simply because of the fears I have of Air Canada engaging in this extra-trucking activity. As I said earlier, its capacities and activities have been broadened extensively. Excessive powers have been granted over the activities and capacities as outlined in clause 6(l)(d) and (i), and we have further order in council powers authorized under clause 8.
The minister indicated in committee that he sees this particular provision being used only in extraordinary circumstances, so I certainly do not see any reason for leaving it in the act. 1 do not think Air Canada needs any more power, whether it is directly contained in the act or granted to it by order in council. If we are to go beyond the powers enshrined in this legislation, it is certainly a matter that should be referred to parliament. When you combine the thrust of this legislation with the thrust of the new National Transportation Act, it provides greater power to the government to dictate and manage the transportation industry of this country. We do not need this sort of ad hoc direction. We need some clearly defined policies and limitations, because we will soon be seeking huge investments in the transportation industry. What we need is continuity of policy and not the day-to-day intervention of the government.
I would hope that through the hearings on the National Transportation Act we will be able to define a realistic national transportation policy with minimal government intervention and will be able to allow the trucking enterprises to strike out on their own and do a job consistent with the delineation of a national transportation policy and with a minimum of ministerial interference. If we can do that, we will avoid the kind of ad hockery that is bound to come with a change of minister. I think it is fair to say that this minister has brought greater stability to the transportation industry than there was in the past. I commend him for that. We do not always agree with his policies, but I think we were successful in getting a clearer definition of the mandate and mission of Air Canada. 1 think our feelings generally correspond with the minister's feelings in that area.
I hope the minister will seriously reconsider motion No. 1, as I do not think it will hurt or impede the operations of Air Canada. If it were accepted, I would be happy to withdraw the other two motions standing in my name. There may be one or two speakers on our side who wish to engage in this debate, Mr. Speaker, so I will just call upon the minister to consider my motion seriously. It is an important motion, and would serve to dispel the fears of the trucking industry and create a better mood of confidence, stability and continuity which is what we really need at this time when we are engaged in a huge investment in the transportation infrastructure. It is something that will come about not only through the private sector but through the involvement of public funds.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate the objectives of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) in bringing forward these amendments. We have discussed them in committee, but I know that one of his purposes-and I assure him that I share it-is to allay the fears of interested parties concerning what may happen with this bill. I believe that in committee I gave those assurances, but I will repeat them here. In putting the new structure of Air Canada before the House, we could have gone to the Canadian Business Corporation and given it all the powers of a natural person in relation to its activities. That would have been seen by some as giving the corporation and management of the

July 15, 1977

board the broad power to engage in activities that are the responsibility of ministers and of government.
We chose not to go that route, and therefore set out in detail the greater powers of the corporation. That leaves open the danger that certain powers might not be found to exist when the corporation wants to act, hence we included in the bill a clause which allows for expansion of those powers by approval of the governor in council and, therefore, the full authority, approval and responsibility of the government. We cited technical cases where that kind of additional power might be needed, or might have been needed in the past, to allow the corporation to get into computer operations, and those things that might arise in the future.
It is implicit in the bill that Air Canada is meant to operate essentially on a commercial basis and not to be able to rely on its position of being owned by the government, nor give it unfair advantage over its competitors in any way, even in the air mode where it will be competing directly. It certainly would not be extended to other modes in any unfair way. That should give some assurance to those who would be seriously concerned. It is not intended that the corporation expand to other modes of transportation at this point. Should that happen, it is a fact that in the case of trucking, obviously the industry would want to know that there are rules applicable to them and that others were applied to Air Canada. That is the essential thrust of the first motion of the hon. member. We resist it, as he knows, not because of its spirit but because the essential requirement of compliance with the highway transportation regulations in each province is already part of our fabric of law and administration. I would not want to see some apparently special treatment reserved in this particular case.
Under our general law in regard to trucking-even interprovincial and international trucking-we gave full authority on an administrative and legal basis to the provincial boards operating there before the constitutional position was determined, and we intend that should be the main basis of control and development in relation to trucking in the future.
While I understand the hon. member's concern and can appreciate why the hon. member for Vegreville reintroduced his motions, I urge the House not to accept them and to retain the bill in the form as reported by the committee.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, if one examines transcontinental operations of both the CNR and CPR, one will note that the railways for many years have found it more profitable to move a substantial proportion of the commodities they handle by truck rather than by rail. Therefore, I am not surprised at the concern of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) that Air Canada may find it more profitable or convenient to transport by truck commodities it at one time transported by air. It may happen, and if it does it will illustrate the correctness of the position my party has taken for many years, that it is impossible to develop in this country an efficient transportation system which will meet the needs of all the people of Canada if you
Air Canada
consider each mode of transportation in isolation from other modes.
If we are concerned about cost, we should not be concerned merely about the direct cost to customers but about the total cost which the customer and the community must meet. We must consider the total cost of airline service, which includes the cost of building airports, the cost of an air traffic control system, the cost of a weather report service, and so on. Similarly, when considering road transport we must consider the cost of building highways. We cannot deal with each mode of transport in isolation. This bill attempts to deal with the difficulties of Air Canada as if Air Canada is a transport entity unto itself. In the past we have dealt with the difficulties of Air Canada as though they are isolated, and with the problems of the railways and the bus companies as though they are isolated.
Almost every study we have commissioned in this country in recent years has concluded that we should not examine the operations of our airlines or railways, or bus companies, or even our private automobiles, in isolation but that, rather, we should consider the over-all effect of all modes of transport and bring forward policies which will enable us to use each of these modes of transport with the utmost efficiency and lowest over-all cost to the community. The intent of this bill is to let Air Canada do its job better. That is precisely what I don't like about it. The former minister of transport, Mr. Marchand, said it is difficult to consider the operations of Air Canada, of CNR or of CPR, or of trucking companies, in isolation. Back in 1975 he said:
Transportation policy must therefore recognize the fact that there is a wide range of facilities and services, operating under different degrees of maturity and competition. It must enable each to be treated in an appropriate manner, and not, as is now the case, as exceptions to a policy which relies principally on competition.
In that speech he talked about the difference between providing service to the Quebec city-Niagara Falls corridor which has available to it the services of rail, trucks, ships, aircraft, and the private automobile, and providing service to western Canada where most commodities must be shipped by rail. One can compare service in the north, where a great proportion of commodities must be shipped by air. I suggest our transport policy does not yet recognize this as a fact. The former minister of transport, in a speech made in 1975, said transportation policy in Canada is "a mess". That comment accurately described our transport policy and was probably the most graphic comment that minister made while serving in this House.
We are supposedly operating under a new transport policy, but it is just the same old transportation policy under which we operated previously. The minister relies on competition, commercial viability, and his now famous concept of user-pay. It would take me days to illustrate the falseness of that concept and the impossibility of applying the used-pay principle, and it should be obvious to anyone who studies the subject that user-pay will not work. People could not live in some parts of this country if you applied the user-pay principle to them.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?

July 15, 1977
Air Canada


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
David Orlikow: Just before the lunch break I indicated the feeling of our party with regard to one of the major defects of this bill, and indeed every bill dealing with transportation brought in by this government. It attempts to-deal with one small phase of the total-transportation picture, in this case Air Canada.
As I indicated earlier today and on other occasions, all the evidence shows that we in Canada need to look at the total transportation picture. We must work out a comprehensive and coordinated transportation policy using all forms of transportation to their maximum efficiency in order to give the greatest social benefits and advantages to the people of Canada. This is why I am concerned about most of the amendments brought in by the hon. member for Vegreville on behalf of the official opposition. In committee I spoke out against one of the hon. member's amendments which the minister accepted. He revised the bill to include it. That is, that it should be written into the bill that Air Canada should have as one of its objectives the making of a profit.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Its main objective.


David Orlikow: Its main objective should be to make a profit.
1 dealt with that aspect in committee. My colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), intends to deal with it as well. It is a great mistake. Air Canada is our national air carrier. It is owned by the people of Canada. It must continue to service areas in which it cannot possibly make a profit. I think of the maritime provinces which have a relatively low population, some of the short hauls in western Canada which, thanks to the minister, have not been permitted to develop, northern Ontario and the Arctic. If that policy is followed, it will have a tremendously detrimental effect.
Because I am not likely to be here for the whole of the debate, I wish to mention one item in particular. In today's Montreal Gazette there is a story headed "Travel firm plans $209 B.C. return". This story indicates that yesterday the federal government opened the way for cheaper domestic air fares, possibly as low as $209 for a return trip Montreal to Vancouver. It states that the cost of a ticket from Toronto or Montreal to Vancouver will be cut in half. Travel agents are enthused. It is a step in the right direction, but I urge the minister to give thought to the real problem. One reason we have a deficit in foreign exchange is as a result of Canadians travelling outside of Canada. During the winter months, Canadians want to visit such places as Hawaii, Florida, Great Britain, Spain, Portugal, and so on. There is not much we can do about the weather. Tens of thousands of people are now

travelling from Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal to other countries. They are travelling to other countries, not because the price of a ticket from Montreal or Toronto to Vancouver is so high, though that is partly the reason, but because if one takes a trip to Hawaii, London, Amsterdam, the coast of Portugal, or Miami, Florida, one is able not just to buy a cheaper air ticket for the flight but a package which includes air fare, hotel and meals. This is virtually impossible in Canada, and such packages certainly are not advertised.
I had my office call some hotels in Vancouver this morning, and this is what I was told. The rate for two in a double room at the Georgia Hotel is $35 per night. At the Airport Hyatt it is $35 to $39 a night. At the Bayshore Inn it is $47 to $58 a night. At the Holiday Inn downtown it is $35 a night. I am not being critical of the hotels in Vancouver; if the people of Vancouver travel to Toronto or Ottawa they will pay even more. My wife came to Ottawa a couple of months ago. The Chateau was full, so she stayed at the Four Seasons, and speaking from memory it cost her somewhere between $45 to $50 single for one night. This is no way to encourage Canadians to travel in Canada, and neither does it encourage tourists to come to Canada from abroad.
If Air Canada really wants to expand its business, I suggest to the Minister of Transport that it not only offer charter fares but that it negotiate with major hotels in Canada in regard to reducing their rates at least for charter or group travellers. Then people in eastern Canada will be able to visit Calgary or Vancouver, and vice-versa, on a package tour basis which includes air travel, hotel accommodation and, hopefully, meals, similar to package tours to Hawaii, Miami, London, Portugal or Spain.
I urge the minister to use the provisions of this bill, which provides in clause 6(1) as follows:
The corporation may, within and outside Canada, (a) establish and operate the business of an air carrier;
(b) buy, sell, lease, construct or otherwise acquire, dispose of and maintain
and operate as necessary or incidental to the operation of the corporation's
business, aircraft, hotels and other accommodation-
I am not saying that Air Canada should go into the hotel business; that may not be necessary. But I do think they should use the powers they have to help develop the kind of travel in Canada which would, if successful, as I am sure it would be, save a great deal of foreign exchange which now escapes this country with so many people travelling outside Canada. Secondly, and more importantly, it would help people in one part of Canada to get to know people in another part. 1 urge the minister to do some of these things I have suggested and to make this legislation worth while and meaningful.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take part in this debate because motions Nos. 1 and 2 which we are debating at the moment have as their intent the placing of limits on the growth of Crown corporations, causing them, in effect, to restrict their input into Canadian society. In recent years there has been growth in excess of 1,000 Crown corpora-
July 15, 1977

tions. It is not just the number of Crown corporations which makes the difference in terms of whether or not we are going to have a society left for free and enterprising people; it is also the scope with which various enterprises, Crown corporations, can extend themselves which is important.
One thing that is obvious in the writ of Bill C-17 is that it offers a broad-ranging scope to enable this Crown corporation, Canadian National, or Air Canada, to participate in a considerable amount of current enterprises being undertaken in Canada by the private sector. As the hon. member for Vegre-ville (Mr. Mazankowski) mentioned, the trucking industry of this country is very likely to face increasing competition. In response to the hon. member for Vegreville, the minister pointed out that he would give certain assurances, as minister, that there would be some competition in the trucking area under the regulations. However, 1 suggest we need much more than an assurance from a member of the cabinet or from the government of the day if the future of the industry is to be at all predictable. The industry affected by this legislation has to know what are the rules of the game, and these should be enshrined in the statute. Under this bill we simply do not know the rules of the game.
Last year, Air Canada lost $20 million in its operations. Let me compare that with Northwest Airlines of the United States, which has about the same capital input, approximately the same number of aircraft, and travels each year approximately the same number of air miles. While Air Canada lost $20 million, Northwest Airlines made a profit in the same period of over $100 million. On the other hand-and this is the difference between the two-Air Canada, a Crown-owned corporation, had almost double the staff of the privately-owned Northwest Airlines. That is an important piece of information to bear in mind when we have today a very efficient, free enterprise trucking industry throughout Canada. Under the provisions of this bill at the present time, CN, which generally trucks only from the railway to storehouses and back again, or between aeroplanes, shuttling back and forth, could very easily become a full-fledged trucking enterprise.
That situation is appalling and frightening to all Canadians. It would not be another Crown corporation, but it would engulf another enterprise. At the present time we have in excess of 1,000 Crown-owned enterprises operating in this country. We have to recognize that some of these corporations are expanding so as to engulf larger and larger proportions of what was previously private dollars.
At the present time, Canadian National Railways has its airline, Air Canada, its hotels, ships, recreation resorts, railways and shopping centres. It is becoming a very extensive operation on behalf of the public sector. Approximately 15 years ago, 28 per cent of the gross national product went for public spending in Canada. Today, something in the order of 42 per cent of our gross national product is going for public spending.
Air Canada
Almost all economists are in full agreement that the private sector creates wealth and, at best, the public sector redistributes wealth. When we take an analysis of what has happened during the past years, we realize more and more that the public sector is taking an increasing percentage of the gross national product. In the past decade and a half we have gone from 28 per cent to 42 per cent. If you put this on a pie-shaped graph and you expand your total GNP and the public "take" out of it, the obvious answer is that there is that much less left over for the private sector.
Thus, we get into situations whereby we have a problem with our balance of payments, with the creativity of wealth in the country and with unemployment. A portion of that is related to the type of bill we have at the present time which provides for the expansion of Crown corporations to operate more and more in areas which were traditionally part of the private sector. While there may have been a motive for the government to make an effort in terms of trying to assist Canadians in the exploration of oil and gas, the natural conclusion ought not to have been to develop Petro-Can as it was in the bill put before the House of Commons.
That act dealt with the exploration and search for hydrocarbon fuels. It also referred to service stations at street level where grease-jockeys jacked up cars and serviced them as a Crown corporations. While we have not moved to that phase, this bill is another example of the government moving into the private sector right down to street level. Do we want our cars to be serviced and looked after by the same people who run the Post Office? When we take a look at the Post Office, we see an institution which turned a profit for this country 15 years ago and lost $700 million this past year. As we take a look at Bill C-17, one of the reasons these two amendments have been placed before the House is to put some limitations on the extent to which Crown corporations can grow.
The trucking industry needs a forum for the airing of grievances, and it needs an assurance of predictability. A sensible private trucking industry cannot operate across this country if at the same time the government of Canada is involved in that business. Few people recognize that Canadian National is the biggest trucking corporation in Canada today. Regardless of the assurances by the minister, the trucking industry as a subsidiary of Air Canada can expand into direct competition with the last of our enterprising people.
A young person starts out by purchasing a truck in order to operate his own business. It is inexcusable of the government to leave a loophole in its legislation allowing for the largest trucking sector to expand in direct competition with the trucking industry. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) gives assurances that if we do not have more than that, then it is a pretty weak case for people purchasing fleets of trucks in order to get into the industry. The objectives of these people are to service the country and expand their businesses. They have been given nothing but assurances by the minister that he will not do it, but the legislation allows for it.
In terms of growth, this legislation could place restrictions, and therefore this amendment must be debated. If the govern-

July 15, 1977
Air Canada
ment becomes involved in the trucking industry, then we have to look at all Crown corporations. We have to look at the Post Office and their $700 million loss over the past year. We have to take a look at Air Canada which lost $20 million and compare that to Northwest Airlines which made a profit of $100 million operating as a private industry. Both airlines had the same type of capital input, amount of planes and number of air miles travelled. Two years ago Air Canada lost $19 million in the most lucrative part of Canada-Toronto to Ottawa to Montreal. It is inconceivable that any company could lose so much in that lucrative area known as the golden triangle.
Part of the reason for these expensive losses on the part of Crown corporations is the bureaucratic overlayering which tends to take place in those corporations. One of the significant differences between Northwest Airlines and Air Canada has almost doubled the staff of Northwest Airlines. The same thing happens when you take a look at oil companies and railway systems. Recently I had some meetings with people from Canadian Pacific Railway, and I was told that the factor at the top management level is eight to one, heavier in CN rail than it is in CP rail.
There is a loophole in this bill. It is a direct threat to the private sector of the trucking industry, which concerns my constituents, my province and every part of Canada. Further, I notice the Minister of Transport said that Air Canada is supposed to operate on a businesslike basis and is supposed to operate according to guidelines-I assume from his intructions and from the instructions of management at Air Canada, to operate that airline on a businesslike basis. I appreciate that those are the words he is saying, but the fact of the matter is that when you compare Air Canada, with other major airlines of similar size, it consistently shows either a lower profit or a loss, while others are showing a profit.
I think we have to see, in the same light, the assurance he is giving to the truckers in this country, because while on one hand he is saying that this company is supposed to work on a businesslike basis, the fact is that it is not. Though he is trying to give us an assurance that it is not going to compete with the trucking industry as long as the legislation is in its present form, I am not convinced that the bureaucrats will not do it. If there is a market there, and in some way they start to lose in some other area of air transport, or any other section of that whole Crown corporation dealing with transport, if there looks to be a lucrative market in the trucking industry I think there will be pressure on the bureaucrats to go ahead and do it.
That, in effect, is what I am sure is going to be causing some pressure, and we must keep bearing in mind that even today, without Bill C-17 before us, Canadian National trucks are the biggest fleet of trucks in all of Canada. Certain restrictions and limitations ought to be put on the size and scope that that sector of business is going to become.
The bill would allow direct competition with the trucking industry, and that is a very unacceptable position. So I agree

very much with motions Nos. 1 and 2-with No. 1. in particular-put forward by my hon. friend from Vegreville, an amendment which would limit CN trucking to incidental and associated transport related to air and rail travel. What it says in effect is that if you have a fleet of trucks associated with CN, that fleet has to be with associated fleet travel, so it is dealing with the freight that comes off a train and has to be hauled somewhere to centre town, or from centre town to the train and likewise to the aeroplane. But it ought to be limited to that and it ought not to have the prerogative of extending into direct trucking right across the country, to get into the private market, which, incidentally, is one of the situations we are in.
People can get into privately setting themselves up on a one-man family, small business, and grow into a large business even today with the growing opportunities in the trucking business at the present time. Certainly, in this very important summer that we have ahead of us, this very important decade that we have ahead of us, one of the things we are going to notice is an increase in truck travel because of the fact that the whole northern development is not going to be just pipelines, but whatever happens in our north as a result of next month's debate is, I am sure, going to lead to a whole expansion far beyond oil and gas in the north. I would hate to think that this development, somewhere down the road, is not going to be serviced by a private fleet of young, enterprising, trucking people who come out of school and want to grab a truck, go into business on their own and operate it efficiently within their own capacity, without some threat of government interference coming in there in direct competition.
In conclusion, then, I hope the minister will urge upon his colleagues that the approach to the intent, the spirit of this bill, is not really too different on either side of the House. What we are asking for in essence is a guarantee enshrined in the legislation, and if the minister were of the same spirit as we are on this side he would say we were giving the private trucking industry the confidence it deserves. It would then feel that its business was secured by legislation, not merely by a promise.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters).


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, these changes in Air Canada have been contemplated for a long time, and they give members an opportunity, unfortunately, at a late stage in the session to make some input into the direction in which we want Air Canada to go. Air Canada has, in effect, been an offspring, a subsidiary of the CNR and has been handled in a pseudo subsidiary capacity. During those years in which it has been under the Canadian National umbrella, the corporation has seen considerable growth from a small organization to a fairly large and competent international airline. But it is not without difficulties, and in this bill we appear to be putting in the same difficulties we established in
July 15, 1977

Canadian National and have paid little attention to the realm of competition in any of the fields in which it operates.
Canadians are a widely travelled people. They travel across the world by car, by sea or boat, particularly people from the province of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski) who go to Mexico and to Florida. You see a great many of them driving there. Canadians travel extensively, and this is causing a great deal of difficulty in relation to the balance of payments and the economy of our country. But in relation to travel, we have been interested in watching the relationship which has happened in Britain to their national airline and to competition. It is interesting that this competition is now causing a great deal of difficulty in the United States and it is causing some difficulty in Canada as well.
Laker aircraft has been granted permission to operate flights at greatly reduced rates between Europe and North America, and this will mean that travel will cost less than 50 per cent of the normal cost of air travel between North America and Britain. Obviously, this competition will have to be met in various ways, but it is interesting that in Canada, where there are a lot of enterprising entrepreneurs, Wardair in particular, should have said it can match the Laker deal and do it without cutting away all the frills. And it will be able to provide travellers with a seat on the aircraft; they will not have to stand up all the way to Europe. They will be able to get refreshments on that trip, rather than cross in total austerity as contemplated in the low-rate Laker package.
Canadians will be obliged to develop a totally new way of handling travel, or they will have to compete. 1 hope Air Canada will in some way learn how to compete. The amendment before us is an indication that the government has given no consideration to this type of competition. We are talking about fares which will take one from Ottawa, Toronto or Montreal to Europe cheaper than you can go across Canada.
The charge is made that we are losing a great deal of money, at least in Canada, particularly in the triangle of Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto, as the previous speaker has said. Every member here knows how this can be solved easily and simply and to the advantage of the travelling public. With the volume of traffic there is between Montreal and Toronto, no airline should be operating as if it had to provide a multicarrier flight to New Zealand. A computer is not needed, nor are other frills needed on that route.
1 was very impressed with the entrepreneur who started the airline between Edmonton and Calgary. You line up, you buy your ticket as you would on a bus, and you catch the flight regularly. It is a half-hour trip. The plane is utilized totally, and the line is making money. The minister should remember that it is replacing a flight that was dropped by Air Canada because it did not make any money. They do not make the usual search that you have at airports. They do not operate from the two international airports that are a few miles out of the two cities, but rather they operate from the municipal
Air Canada
airports right in the cities which are easily accessible to the travelling public.
They run that service efficiently, and they move a very large number of passengers. If you are standing in line and they take 100 passengers a flight and you are the one hundred and first, you would wait for the next flight and you would be the first one on it. You cannot wait more than one hour. It is my guess that when Air Canada ran that flight, one sometimes had to wait four or five hours to get on that flight. You could either wait at the airport or you could go back to the city and make several trips back and forth before you got a seat on the flight. Now it takes much less time.
The company which runs that airline competes very successfully with local ground transportation. My case is that they are making a lot of money. Two pilots fly each plane; they do not serve coffee, and there are no frills. But an efficient service is provided. Perhaps that is the way in which we should handle transportation between short distances. The efficiency per passenger of such of flight is 150 per cent better than if you were to fill up a DC-9 to fly between the two cities. The DC-9 has about the same capacity as the plane they fly on the air base where they use a Boeing 727. That type of operation should be considered seriously by the minister. It provides a good service.
There is a matter in which the Postmaster General (Mr. Blais), I and the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) are interested. It concerns a flight between Ottawa, North Bay and Sudbury. A jet service was to be provided by a third carrier, but there was opposition from Air Canada. They won, and they put on an early morning flight which nobody took. Then they provided another flight in the middle of the afternoon which, again, nobody took. Now they have discontinued the flight. A fourth level carrier is now operating that flight with DC-3s. I think the Postmaster General would agree with me that on a Friday afternoon you need a reservation on that flight to get a seat on the plane because it is often filled to capacity.


Mr. Blais:: I fully agree with the hon. gentleman.


William Arnold Peters: It seems to me that that service is provided at a time when many people use it, so it fills the purpose and the airline makes money. I suggest that one of our main aims should be to provide service. Any member here can tell you that service could be improved in the triangle area of Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto. There is not a member here who could not make suggestions about better service which could make Air Canada a heck of a lot more money.
Another point that I wish to make is that a return trip to Europe is cheaper than a single fare to Vancouver. Surely hon. members should be concerned about this because many of them fly to Vancouver regularly, perhaps once a week, and they are aware of the difference in cost. Surely the cost of domestic flights should be reduced.
I suggest that if we pass this bill without amendments, we will be duplicating what CNR has done, as has been said here before. We would not only be asking Air Canada to run an

July 15, 1977
Air Canada
airline; we would be giving them authority, as it is stated in the bill, to buy and operate aircraft, hotels and other accommodation, surface vehicles and facilities for the transportation and housing of persons, goods and mail. If the bill is passed, Air Canada will be authorized to buy condominiums at all the places to which they fly. They would want condominiums so their crews could stay there. We would be allowing them to buy trucks and other vehicles of transportation. The only thing I cannot see them operating is a railway, although they might even consider that. There is nothing in our transportation system which would surprise me very much. I would not even be surprised if Air Canada wanted to start a railway operation. What we want from them is an efficient airline.
I believe they should buy the kind of accommodation that is necessary. Hotels in Canada are a disaster. Accommodation in a hotel in Canada costs twice as much as comparable accommodation in the United States. Why is that so? Simply because in Canada they make no attempt to fill the hotel. Most of the time our major hotels are half full. From time to time there is a convention, and then they are filled. But generally speaking our hotels are only half filled, and therefore the price is douoled to cover the overhead. Therefore, we would like the airline to go into the hotel business to the same extent as other airlines, so they can make arrangements on behalf of customers and so their customers can make reservations at hotels for reasonably-priced accommodation. This may have to apply to meals as well. If it does not, there will be less and less travel in Canada, and more and more travel outside Canada.
Our forefathers did not set up Canada National Railways to make money. When Trans-Canada Air Lines was set up, it was set up with government financing, and with the backing of the general public, to provide a service. We have an immense country, and the only way to unite it was to provide a transportation facility to link it up. Today, when it costs $350 to go to Vancouver, most people would rather go to Florida or Mexico for half that price and have their holidays arranged by airlines through package tours. With the exception of Banff and several other ski tours in the winter, Air Canada does not have any package tours. We should be providing that kind of service to the Canadian people. We should be attempting to unite the people of this country, and there is no better way of doing that than by having people travel around the country.
A fantastic number of people in the province in Quebec could tell us more about every city in Florida, Mexico or in the continental United States, than about parts of Canada. I do not blame them, because all kinds of arrangements have been made to facilitate their travel to those areas. If you travel by car, your oil company will put together a package, arrange for hotels and provide all kinds of advice so that you can have a pleasurable trip. In Canada, nothing similar to that has been done for most areas. In my area the cost of accommodation, air fare, rail fare and all other costs which face tourists are so high that tourist activity is decreasing and many tourist opera-

tors are going out of business. I presume this is true in all the provinces.
Air Canada has a great reputation. It is probably the best airline I have ever used. The airline leaves much to be desired on the ground, however, and its tariff structure is a disaster. I do not think it is doing anything for the airline. It certainly does nothing for me, and I think it does nothing for the travelling public. Rather than getting vouchers to travel on Air Canada, I wish members of parliament had to make expenditures and be rebated. In that way we would know exactly what our travel costs and we would be much more concerned about problems than we are. It is not hard to get a $500 voucher to travel on Air Canada, but if we had to pay our fare and be rebated, we would wonder why it costs $500 to go to Vancouver and back.


Mr. Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, because he is a good friend of mine. I have a great deal of respect for him, but the speech he is making should have been made at second reading. We discussed these things at length in committee. We worked hard there. We have motions Nos. 1 and 2 before us, and up to this point none of the remarks made by the hon. member have had any bearing on them. It seems to me that it is up to you, Mr. Speaker, to call the hon. member to order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Hon. members will have noticed that in the past the Chair has been lenient. Sometimes hon. members give us a little tour and then come back to the subject before the House. Ground transportation is mentioned in motion No. 1. The hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) indicated that this has been discussed at length, but when he rose I was just about to remind the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) that his time had expired. So perhaps there is no point of order to rule upon.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, much of what the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) has said is accurate, but I believe the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) was trying to express the concern of hon. members from all parties in relation to what they hope Air Canada will provide in the way of service in the days ahead.
Coming from the maritimes, I am concerned because Air Canada is to a certain degree endeavouring to become involved in a field in which one Crown corporation is already involved to such an extent that it has caused great difficulties for the private sector. When we were endeavouring to secure the government's approval to bring trucking under the Maritime Freight Rates Act and to obtain subsidies so that there would be competition for the railways and, hopefully, through competition, more realistic freight rates, we discovered that the CNR, a Crown corporation, then moved into the trucking industry and dashed one of the hopes we had. We had hoped that competition would bring down truck rates and freight rates in general. I would be very concerned if Air Canada were to embark upon any venture which would result in the elimination of still more privately-owned trucking firms in favour of
July 15, 1977

government-owned firms, thus eliminating to an even greater degree the competition that is fast disappearing at this time.
Parliament must give very serious consideration to the amendments which are before us, so that the private enterprise sector is not interfered with in the area of transportation. 1 am upset about the degree of infiltration into the trucking industry by Crown-owned companies now, and I abhor the thought that they are going to move into the industry to an even greater degree in the days ahead. I am totally opposed to any concept which would allow that to happen in the future.
Air Canada has not instilled much confidence in the people of Canada in recent years as far as management is concerned. It has shown some multimillion dollar losses, so I hate to think of it branching into other areas.
The hon. member for Timiskaming may have been a little bit off the point of the amendment, but he was right on in regard to the arrangements in force at present for Canadians to move around the country at a reasonable price. It is cheaper to travel outside Canada.
We should try to determine how Air Canada can invest the money it has to best advantage in areas that would improve its service. When the bill was last before the House I brought to the attention of the minister the atrocious scheduling in Atlantic Canada. The hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) and the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) also voiced the opinion that it was totally inadequate and must be improved. We had hoped for some action, and when the President of Air Canada announced plans for new and distinctive administrative regions encompassing all of Atlantic Canada by July 1 and that Mr. Linder, Vice President of the corporation, would head a new division, we looked forward to improvements. But we were disappointed to find there was no real difference in the schedule of flights between major centres in the Atlantic provinces and other major centres in Canada as of July 1 or even April 1. We live in hope that the fall schedule will re-establish the type of service we used to have; even though it was not the best in the world it was not as bad as that in force at present.
Tourism is down again this year, and unless the airlines assist with better service to move people into and out of the area it will be worse. Last year was devastation for the tourist industry, and the outlook is not good for this summer.
I do not know how we can convince Air Canada that it should produce at least a half decent system for the area without embarking upon new ventures that might add to the multimillion dollar deficit it already has.
I am concerned for the trucking industry inasmuch as Air Canada and the CNR in concert could do great damage to firms already in existence. The CNR often operates on a tariff basis that would eliminate private enterprise and then, when it has achieved that end, increases its rates. The CNR charges whatever it wants to, with little regard for whether those using its service can maintain their business or not. Tremendous cutbacks in employment are anticipated in Moncton and Nova
Air Canada
Scotia and now we have an indication that Air Canada wants to get into the trucking industry, and possibly the hotel industry.
The hon. member for Timiskaming was correct when he said that the hotel business was a disaster for the tourist because our rates are so high compared with those in the United States. And even though our hotel industry is operating at 50 per cent capacity or less today, I do not see any indication of changes. Unless they bring their prices down they will not be able to persuade people to use them.
It is frightening to think of Air Canada going into the hotel business, using taxpayers' money, and in effect putting out of business hoteliers whose taxes go to maintain the airline which is reporting huge losses. I am concerned that Air Canada has not done more for Atlantic Canada. Both in committee and in this House a lot has been said about the atrocious service it provides to the Atlantic provinces. I view its involvement in the trucking industry with deep concern; we have already seen what the CNR has done to the trucking industry and to private enterprise in Altantic Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before calling on the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) who, I believe, wants to contribute to this discussion, let me say I had indicated earlier in the day that the Chair has some concern, which I endeavoured to outline, about the procedural acceptability of motion No. 3.
In keeping with past practice I also circulated to some members of the House my notes in respect of the breakdown of motions which will be grouped for discussion. Those notes included in this instance my own notes about my procedural concern with respect to motion No. 3. I provided those notes to hon. members in order to give all hon. members the maximum opportunity to check the citations to which I had resorted in coming to today's preliminary conclusion, and I thought they would assist hon. members to prepare themselves for the discussion, if one were to take place, with respect to the procedural irregularity of motion No. 3. 1 understand hon. members have had the opportunity to review those citations and that no further discussion in respect of that motion is contemplated at present. I therefore repeat my earlier assessment of this motion. It appears to me to introduce a concept entirely foreign to the clause it seeks to amend. In my opinion, and for reasons I stated in a preliminary way this morning, it goes beyond the scope of the clause. Therefore, in line with citation 203(3) of Beauchesne's fourth edition, and Erskine May's nineteenth edition, page 521, I would conclude that the amendment goes beyond the scope of the clause it seeks to amend and is therefore procedurally out of order.
1 said this morning that motions Nos. 4 to 9 inclusive could be grouped together. That was an erroneous statement on my part. I had intended to refer to the motions standing in the name of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) and group them together. Those are motions Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9. I

July 15, 1977
Air Canada
understand it is agreeable to discuss them together and, if necessary, to vote on them separately.
Motions Nos. 4 and 5 are separate from that group, and separate from each other. Motion No. 4 is in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and would be discussed and voted on separately. Essentially, motion No. 5 is a government amendment, designed to bring the French text of the bill in line with the English text and probably will not be the subject of much discussion or of a vote. In any case, it must be discussed and voted on separately if that is necessary. Therefore motion No. 4 will be discussed and voted on separately, as will motion No. 5. Motions Nos. 6 to 9 inclusive will be debated as a group, and voted on in a manner deemed necessary as the votes are called, if votes on those motions are necessary. If that is agreeable, perhaps I can call on the hon. member for Palliser to continue the debate on motions Nos. 1 and 2.


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the authority this bill would grant the governor in council to run the affairs of Air Canada. The bill would require Air Canada to report on its operations directly to the minister, and thus to parliament. That provision is desirable and we are thankful for it. But part of the price we must pay for the privilege is this: the organization will become the creature of the minister of transport, whoever he may be, from time to time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let's hope it will not be the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner).


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: The present minister will not always be Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). Politics being what it is, we can expect changes to be made from time to time, just as we can expect changes to be made in life. I think political considerations will influence the operations of Air Canada. That may be good or it may be bad. It depends how the influence is used.
I want to see this public corporation operate according to law, not according to the whims of an elected official, or of some faceless bureaucrat not accountable to parliament for his actions. At least if this bill passes we shall have the satisfaction of discussing Air Canada's operations from time to time, and hon. members will be able to voice their concern. I do not know how effective this exercise will be. I suppose the best thing about it is that because the subject will be discussed in this forum the public will be better informed. But I am greatly concerned, because the governor in council will have a great deal to say about the operations of the corporation.
Motions 1 and 2 are designed to protect the trucking industry and to make sure that in future there will not be any possibility of nationalizing our trucking industry by the back door, as it were. The industry, largely made up of small companies, by and large has proven efficient in carrying this country's freight. It has grown over the years and is the beneficiary of money spent largely by provincial jurisdiction,

inasmuch as the trucking industry depends on this country's highway network, mostly under provincial jurisdiction.
Our trans-Canada highway system has been funded partly by the federal government, but the bulk of the country's roads still are the direct responsibility of the provinces. I point out that of all freight moved in Canada, the trucking industry moves 42 per cent. When I say all freight, I include freight moved by air, water and pipeline, and freight moved by truck. We move great volumes of commodities by way of pipeline, and one may say, too, that the trucking industry, composed of a large number of fairly small operators, has put up a creditable performance.
We should adopt the hon. member's motions, I suggest, because Canadian National Railways is becoming a big operator of trucks in an already large trucking industry. I understand that the Canadian National truck system now accounts for almost 5 per cent of that 42 per cent share of the total freight-haul market trucks have captured. The company has done this despite the provisions of the existing law which theoretically should limit Canadian National's ability to engage in trucking. I understand that the courts have interpreted parliament's approval of CNR's financing as having over-ridden the provisions of legislation which says the CNR must operate only as a railway.
As has been pointed out, one only has to look at the other activities of Canadian National, which is primarily a railway company. It has built the world's tallest free standing structure, acquired an interest in a fleet of ships, and has a large interest in the container operations to use with those ships. According to the television commercials of CN, it is certainly trying to emulate Canadian Pacific by getting into a very diversified operation.
What I object to in this situation is that the governor in council, in other words whoever may be Minister of Transport from time to time, will feel that he has a vested interest in making the operation of Air Canada look good. A political influence is now being introduced. The minister will take the position that he must have a good annual report to present to parliament so that the heat will be off him. He will therefore be very willing to stretch to the limit something the present Minister of Transport has undertaken to constrain, the present activities of Air Canada and functions of Air Canada.
I feel an adequate precedent has been established by what has happened to CN. The same need not happen with Air Canada. There is the matter of surface transportation, passenger traffic and baggage and, as the minister mentioned, mail is being authorized. That may be proper. There may be some controversy because I do not think it is generally accepted that Air Canada should have all the mail business. The tendency of the government will be to give Air Canada more and more of the mail business so that it will have a better profit and therefore better annual report.
There will be a natural bias against the private sector. This may be all right in some areas because the private sector has
July 15, 1977

not done that good a job. The trucking industry has proven to be a very efficient and competitive operation. Otherwise CN and CP would not be getting into it.
We should look to the past and try to learn from our mistakes. We should not protect a healthy and viable industry. It is not dominated by giants but made up of many small entrepreneurial firms.
The trucking industry can move high valued freight from central Canada to the west coast as quickly as air cargo. If the Parliament of Canada decides this industry should be nationalized, let us do it through the front door.


An hon. Member:: Like Lougheed.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: He did it very directly via the front door. He operated through the law. I do not think anyone can accuse him of operating illegally.


John R. Rodriguez: And he did it with heritage funds.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: 1 do not think the heritage fund had been adopted at that time. Of course 1 am not here to defend Premier Lougheed and the decision with regard to Pacific Western Airlines. I can point out, however, that we have a government that can be responsible for an airline. It has left the management pretty well unto itself in the day to day operation. At least it makes money. That is something this government cannot claim for this highly protective national airline.


An hon. Member:: Did CP make any?


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: CP did not make any either. That was probably as a result of the policies of this federal government. It is greatly restricted by the amount of traffic it is allowed to handle, largely for the benefit of Air Canada.
I do not object to people operating in these areas as long as there is free and unrestricted competition. What is necessary is that the consumer benefit. We need a free and open market place.
The government wants the power to issue directives in writing to this company because it has a responsibility for it. Naturally it will do everything it can to make it look as though it is making a profit, it may do a good job writing an annual report, but in doing so it will deprive the whole economy of profit competition. We will end up with more and more of these functions being run by the government or through government agencies. I do not like it.
If the intention is to get into freight handling, why not say it? Why is the minister so afraid of taking it in? He agrees with the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). All he says is, "Trust me." Well, we might trust him and we might not.
If we do trust him, how are we to know what he says here today will bind any future minister or administration? I like to see things done by law, not policy. There is ample precedent for the necessity of this type of amendment. Let us learn from
Air Canada
the past and keep Air Canada in the air business, not the trucking business.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, when I came into the chamber I did not intend to say anything with regard to the amendments being debated. But after listening to the gobbledygook on my right, I have been stimulated into making a few remarks. It was all I could do to sit and listen to them say how competition will solve the problem and that profit making is the new goddess which must be worshipped. They said we must look to the past and we must keep Air Canada in the air.
The hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) talked about keeping Air Canada in the air, but he did not say anything about the extending tentacles of CP investment, CP Air, and the growth of that monolith, Canadian Pacific. They are not only in the air but on the ground in terms of rail freight, passenger business, steel mills, mining corporations and real estate. I suggest to the hon. member for Palliser that we look to the past so that we do not repeat our mistakes, thinking we can provide competition in terms of transportation in Canada and that competition will solve our transportation problems.
We in the NDP look on transportation in terms of service. According to all the articles I have read about railways, air lines and communications, since Canada covers a wide geographic area it is service to the people which should be uppermost in our minds. I have nothing against monopolies. It is just the matter of who owns them that concerns me. 1 am much more comfortable when a monopoly is owned by the public than when it is owned by a few people sitting in boardrooms in New York state or in the Senate.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: What is the difference?


John R. Rodriguez: My hon. friend does not know the difference. The difference is that when the people own the monopoly the people have control over it through their elected party.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Where is the control here?


John R. Rodriguez: If the hon. member wants to talk about control that is a different matter. If Air Canada is to get into trucking while Canadian Pacific, using vertical integration, can handle the hotel business-


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: So does CN.


John R. Rodriguez: Now just hold your horses.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are there horses in this bill too? Have they horses on the payroll again?


John R. Rodriguez: No, there are no horses in this bill. I am talking about competition. The population of Canada is so small that you cannot compete with a very small market. Airlines in the United States are competing with each other but they are losing money because there are too many airlines.

July 15, 1977
Air Canada
The two national airlines in Canada are competing for a very small market and both of them end up losing money.
It seems to me only reasonable that when an airline sets up a package tour, for example, it has to tie in with hotels to provide service to the travelling public. In the same way it is important that Air Canada have access to the trucking of air freight which it moves. It is extremely important that Air Canada be integrated so it can provide service to hotels and truck air freight.
What bothers me is that hotels which are owned by the people of Canada are being turned over to the Hilton chain to manage. It seems to me that this is not in the best interests of the Canadian public, particularly the travelling public. For example, right now the Hotel Vancouver is into a strike position. It is administered by the Hilton chain under contract to CN. We have never had a strike in 26 years among the workers at the Hotel Vancouver, but now that management has been turned over to the Hilton chain, lo and behold we have our first strike there. This is one concern we have when hotels are turned over to foreign outfits to administer.
I always get a charge out of the argument made by my colleagues to my right. They want no government interference in the market place, in the so-called private sector. However, when the private sector is having difficulty and needs support prices for its products, the bottom having fallen out of the market because of free market competition, it asks the government for a subsidy, a handout.
As my colleagues to my right know full well, one thing we do not have in this country is a free market. We have an administered market. Whether my friends like it or not, the giants in a particular sector set the trend. It strikes me that the free enterprise system does not want competition; it wants to control the market so it can take advantage of all the spin-off effects.
We have been invited to look at past history. We know that the taxpayers of this country built up CP by giving the company millions of acres of land. Now when taxpayers in various cities across the country, specifically in the city of Sudbury where CP is located in the downtown area, want the land back, CP tells them they will have to pay for it. As I say, the land was given to CP in the first place, in return for which they were to provide a service to the people of this country. We now have a perfect example of what happens when modes of transportation, operated by CP and CN, compete for the rail travelling public.
Competition is not the solution to the problems of rail transportation. We do not have a large enough travelling public to make both these giants profitable. We know their routes cover long distances and their upkeep costs are tremendous, but it is illogical to expect both corporations to make money when they parallel each other's routes across the country. Therefore it is only fair that the government's philosophy on transportation should be directed to providing service.
When the Canadian Transport Commission was considering an east-west route from Montreal to Ottawa, Sudbury, Thun-

der Bay and on to Winnipeg, two airlines, Nordair and Air Canada, applied for the route. Nordair put a great lobby on in this House with the members from northern Ontario.


William Arnold Peters: Order!


John R. Rodriguez: They held big cocktail parties, wine and cheese parties. They wined and dined-


William Arnold Peters: Order!


John R. Rodriguez: The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) can call order all he wants, but he was there and was part of it. He went down to the Carlton Towers hotel where members were wined and dined.


An hon. Member:: Did you go too?


John R. Rodriguez: No, I was not there. I refuse to participate in any of these lobbies.


Walter David Baker: How about the teachers' federation? Do you go to their functions?


John R. Rodriguez: No, I do not. I go to their cocktail parties but they are not after a franchise. But hon. members are casting aspersions. I do happen to be a fellow of the Ontario Teachers' Federation and, as such, I am a sort of honorary dignitary at the meetings of the federation.


William Arnold Peters: You are one of the nabobs of the federation.


John R. Rodriguez: Nordair laid on a splurge for members from Ontario, and I am glad to say that my colleague from Timiskaming attended. The next day they all got the big pitch. They wanted letters of support for the Nordair application before the CTC for the route from Montreal through Sudbury and on to Winnipeg. My support went to Air Canada.


William Arnold Peters: Tell us what happened when they got it.


John R. Rodriguez: Yes, Air Canada got it and they are servicing-


William Arnold Peters: They got it, but they are not servicing it.


John R. Rodriguez: I do not agree with that.


William Arnold Peters: Be honest about it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order!


John R. Rodriguez: I fly via Air Canada to Ottawa, and I arrive at 3.45 o'clock from Sudbury. It leaves Sudbury at 2.50. It is a very profitable route and is quite crowded. I argue in favour of Air Canada because it has to provide service on routes where no money is made. Therefore Air Canada has a right to have a route which is profitable.
The government ought to espouse that concept of transportation. It is not a question of making profit. It is a question of serving ihe people of this country with a particular airline,
July 15, 1977

railway, bus service, or whatever. In Ontario Grey Coach provided a bus service from Sudbury to Toronto. Grey Coach is owned by the people of Ontario through the CTC. Mr. Eddie Goodman, the flunky for Mr. Davis, made an appeal before the Ontario Transport Commission and surprisingly won for Greyhound, which is an American privately owned corporation. Thus Grey Coach has to pick up all the losing routes. The private sector in Toronto had Eddie Goodman in its back pocket.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point of order relates generally to transportation. I think the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) has strayed somewhat from the subject. For his edification I should like to indicate to him that in Ontario matters regarding highways are decided by a quasi-judicial tribunal which is as independent as the judiciary.


John R. Rodriguez: I recognize I hit a tender spot of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), but the principle is there. Where a service is being provided, it seems to me government-owned transportation systems ought to take the good with the bad and not just take the bad. The amendments put forward by the Conservative party are with respect to Air Canada limiting itself to air and not becoming integrated with hotels and road transportation. If we look at the recent past, we see in a provincial jurisdiction where a publicly owned corporation was providing service on routes where it could make money, thus offsetting the cost to taxpayers of routes where it was not making money. Because of political machinations, we found the government shearing routes off to privately owned foreign corporations. It seems to me that these Tories and Grits are the same old gang.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: They can parade around all they want, but when they run into difficulties they come to the public trough and slurp it up just like any other corporation, public or private. Really, that is the crux of the matter. Are we going to provide service to the people of Canada with our transportation systems? Are we going to say to the public corporations that they have to take the out-of-the-way routes which cannot carry themselves and we will shear off the nice cushy ones? If the private sector runs into difficulty with the nice cushy ones, it can always come back to Santa Claus and have the public treasury opened up for it. You cannot suck and blow at the same time, but that is what the Tories and Grits do all the time.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You are the only one who can do that in this House.


John R. Rodriguez: The hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) has mastered that technique. Since I have come here, I have marvelled at his mastery of that technique.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Not as well as the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).
Air Canada


John R. Rodriguez: Our party has persistently maintained the position that we do not mind monopolies, as long as the people of Canada own them through their elected representatives.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: I would have enjoyed hearing the Conservatives stand up and argue that we should be breaking up the monopoly of CP Investments and that we should not have this conglomerate buying up land and becoming involved in various things, because it is destructive to free enterprise in this country. The minute one refers to breaking up the banks, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) runs in and is their great defender. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) defends banks any time there is an attempt to break up the monopolies of the banks.
As I indicated, it is sucking and blowing when it is said the people-owned transportation corporations ought not to integrate themselves, but on the other hand one turns a blind eye to the conglomerates and the monolithic private sectors such as CP Investments. One only has to look at the food industry to see how free enterprise can be destroyed. I should like to refer to one example-


An hon. Member:: Tell us about that next week.


John R. Rodriguez: In the city of Sudbury there is a bakery known as Ceccuti Bakery which employs 200 people. This firm has to close because the chains are loss leadering their own bread which is brought in from Toronto. The owner has to close up because he cannot compete. He is being squeezed out by the competitive pricing practices of supermarkets such as Dominion and Loblaw's which bring in their bread from southern Ontario and other places. That is another example of how free enterprise is being destroyed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, it behooves members of this House to read more than one philosophy. It behooves them to evaluate the philosophies they read and to choose from the options which are in print and which are in practice what may best work in a particular psychological and philosophical situation in the society in which we live.
Having taken a look at some of the experiences which the Government of Canada and its people have experienced, as a result of following some of the philosophies of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), let me point out that it seems to be quite all right for a particular Crown corporation to lose $190 million. I have not heard the hon. member criticize that, but some taxpayer somewhere is going to pick up his portion of that $190 million.


Walter David Baker: 


Fred Alward McCain: Yes, AECL. The minister who was supposed to be in charge of that, the Minister of Energy, Mines and

July 15, 1977
Air Canada
Resources (Mr. Gillespie), might be used as an example of what happens when people take on business operations through their government. Once it was taken on there was no checkmate, no board of directors, no stockholders meetings, no stockholders notification, and no advice whatsoever. How many of those do we need? We have watched the government operate the Canadian National Railways. We have watched the government diversify in all ways which this act would have Air Canada diversify, and it has piled deficit upon deficit upon deficit. It has also curtailed service upon service. It has made its schedule impossible, as far as conveniencing the people of the Atlantic areas is concerned.
The hon. member may live in Nickel Belt and he may know all about that area, but I suggest he review the history and the services of Canadian National and then examine his own philosophy with great care and see whether it does in fact serve the people it was intended to serve. And the answer is, it does not.


An hon. Member:: What is the CPR doing in New Brunswick?


Fred Alward McCain: All I can tell the hon. member is that many of us have shipped thousands of cars of materials, moved them tens and twenties of miles to get them to the CP for service which the CN could have provided and ought to have provided. The hon. member is putting forward a ridiculous argument.


An hon. Member:: No weaknesses in the CP?


Fred Alward McCain: They have their weaknesses. The weaknesses are multitude. But they still have stockholders who have a voice.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Fred Alward McCain: If we, as individuals in this House, were to have a voice in the operation of Air Canada or in the reorganization of Air Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Agreed!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fred Alward McCain: -and if its general management were subject to the criticism of this House, and if it would recognize the criticism which comes from members of the House, we would be singing a different tune. But this is not the case. This bill divorces the taxpayers from any ability to influence the corporation. He has not one word to say even through his elected representative. And that is reprehensible legislation.


William Arnold Peters: The Liberals can muck up even a good program.


Fred Alward McCain: I have sat in the House long enough to know that no effective input into the policy or operations of Air Canada has been made by any committee of this House which

has sat since October 30, 1972, and according to other members who have been here far longer than I have no one has ever been successful in making an input into Air Canada's operations despite all the notes and memoranda written to the president, to the chairman, or to branch management. Nothing happens.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fred Alward McCain: If the government would agree to say to the airline, "You will submit your budget to a committee of the House which will have an opportunity to study it and appraise its profitability and assess the service provided by your corporation," we would be talking about a different kettle of fish. But that is not the situation. We are being asked to approve a bill which puts more power in the hands of the minister, a bill which gives still more leeway to the executive, an executive which has proven itself incapable of running a service comparable with that available from other airlines.
I want to give you an example from personal experience of what I mean in terms of the basic procedures by which Crown corporations in general, and Air Canada in particular, operate. It was recently necessary for me to go to Washington. I was not able to make a connection via Air Canada because Air Canada does not bother connecting the Atlantic region continentally with any points except Montreal and Toronto. So I had to go to Presquile and use an American airline. What was my experience? We were grounded at Portland, Maine, by weather conditions, as can happen with any airline. There were two ticket officers at the airport there, side by side. I spoke with the agents of both companies, because of the urgency of my getting to the meeting in Washington. Those two men paged me jointly and separately and kept me posted every ten or 20 minutes until I knew exactly where I was going to be, and at what time, and could let the people at the other end know.
It was not six months ago that 1 had the misfortune to be out at the airport in the little city of Ottawa, at the disposal of Air Canada. With me was a father, a mother, a 13-month-old child, and a 3-month-old child. Do you know what that airline did at the airport, Mr. Speaker? They would not tell me what the weather was like out of doors. And they took those two little children, together with the father and mother, to Montreal in spite of the promise which was given to them at the airport, and dumped them off in Montreal where they sat for 18 hours on the benches at the airport there. I ask you to compare that kind of treatment which the service I received across the border.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. It being four o'clock the House will proceed to private members' business.


Fred Alward McCain: I wish to call it four o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


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


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I take it I have been recognized as calling it four o'clock.
July 15, 1977


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I have just recognized the parliamentary secretary on a point of order. Afterwards I will hear the hon. member.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, in the normal course of events, earlier in the day we had made arrangements for the usual private members' business to be undertaken in this hour. Unfortunately, after we had begun our business today the hon. member who was in a position to proceed with an item in the private members' hour this afternoon, found he was not in a position to do so. This news came to us at a time when it was too late to arrange substitute business for this hour.
As hon. gentlemen across the way well know, private members' hour is one period which, unlike some others, is marked by a degree of co-operation and cordiality, and it is on this basis we are able to proceed on most days. It sometimes happens that a member is not in a position to proceed with the arranged item of business at the last minute and this leaves the House in some difficulty because of the late notice which is then given to other members about the kind of business we might take in that hour. That is the position in which we find ourselves today because of the late cancellation; we have not been able to find another item of business with which to proceed.


An hon. Member:: Poor arrangements.


Ralph Goodale: Bearing in mind the point we have reached in the session it would seem to me to be a wise use of the time of the House if there were agreement to proceed with the hour remaining to us today by continuing consideration of the business which is presently before us, Bill C-17.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Ralph Goodale: I hear some catcalls, an indication from the other side that hon. gentlemen may not be in the mood to do the country's business today. Nevertheless, I will at least request that we consider taking this hour which is available to us this afternoon and to devote to the continuation of the debate on Bill C-17.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, speaking first to the question of private members' business as raised by my friend, I gather that the hon. member who sponsors the said motion, who is a member of the Liberal party, is not prepared to proceed with it. It is unfortunate, however, that the P.C. party was not asked whether we would be prepared to proceed with private members' business because we might well have been if we had been notified four, five or six minutes ago. In any event, private members' hour is an hour marked by
Order of Business
co-operation, which means that government members co-operate to ensure that private members' business does not leave the House on second reading. That is the essence of the co-operation. Unfortunately, that is what is happening.
It is not too late to organize. I think perhaps we could go through the items on the order paper and find something which could be debated. The parliamentary secretary says he cannot do that under the circumstances. 1 happen to think that private members' hour should be respected. The parliamentary secretary and you, Mr. Speaker, I am sure, can tell from the comments from all sides of the House that there is no disposition to give up private members' hour simply because the government is not prepared to put forward a motion. Therefore, Sir, I must say, so that there be no doubt about it that I hide behind no one with respect to the matter and I say that consent is not forthcoming from this side, in the circumstances experienced in the House of Commons in the last couple of days.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I gather that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has refused consent to giving up the private members' hour. That seems to leave us with the question as to whether there is something we could deal with, and I draw attention to notice of motion No. 27 in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). We would be prepared to deal with that motion in this hour.


Walter David Baker: That would be agreeable to us, Mr. Speaker.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There was some discussion as to whether we might not proceed with another motion.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Quit the stalling.


Jean-Jacques Blais: An offer was made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Goodale) to deal with Bill S-2. We attempted to obtain that consent because there are very few days left in which to deal with private members' business. In view of the fact that the hon. member suggested that we proceed with debate on that bill, let me say that we would be pleased to do so. Also, there has been some discussion that in the event we could not proceed with the item that had been suggested previously, the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy), that the House adjourn at this point. Therefore, 1 in view of the inability to meet any requirement as to the business with which we are to proceed, all the best efforts having been made, I suggest that the House do now adjourn.


Some hon. Members:: No!


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that there is no motion before the House, I suggest that, despite all the palaver of the parliamentary secretary, we proceed as usual and that you call out the notices of motions in the regular order, at
7734

July 15, 1977
Order of Business
which time I would be prepared to indicate my preference if no other member indicates his.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. Because of the bumbling of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Goodale) we are faced with this dilemma.
I have a notice of motion No. 27 on the order paper. We have not yet run out of business important to the people of Canada. The motion in my name asks the government to consider the establishment of a mining act for the protection of miners. If that is not of concern to the people >T Canada, I do not know what is. How can the Postmaster General (Mr. Blais) suggest adjournment of the House when we have important business such as notice of motion No. 27 regarding the safety of workers? We can very well debate it. I think the government has bungled House of Commons business in the last three days miserably, and now it wants to adjourn the House. It is absolutely shameful for it to want to adjourn the House.


Walter David Baker: And we will not let them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: There has been a suggestion that we proceed to motion No. 27. Is that agreed?


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, we seem to have lost that note of cordiality which 1 referred to earlier which tends to be the hallmark of this hour. I think we should go through the normal process of calling out the items of business on the order paper. I do not think we have any other alternative at this stage but to follow the normal process.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Since we do not have unanimous consent to proceed to notice of motion No. 27, we will consider the motions one by one. The first notice of motion is No. 16 in the name of the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin).


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is not here.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is there agreement to debate the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the sponsor of the motion must be present in the House to move a motion. The hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin) is not here, so we cannot proceed with the motion, and I propose that it be struck.


Walter David Baker: I rise on the same point of order. I would be prepared to move the motion in the name of the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin) so that we could proceed with the debate on it. That is quite in order, and in accordance with the rules.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Not unless the mover of the motion consents.
(Mr. Peters.]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The motion is stood at the request of the government.
Notice of motion No. 17 in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). Is there unanimous consent to proceed with motion No. 17 in the absence of its mover?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: no.
Motion No. 17 stood at the request of the government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Notice of motion No. 26 in the name of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The motion stands at the request of the government.


MERCHANT MARINE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, December 6, 1976, consideration of the motion of Mr. Guay (Levis):
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of reviving the Canadian Merchant Marine and applying recommendations of the Darling Report.
Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to deal with this particular motion. There has been some debate on this motion, and the interest of the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) is a very serious and worthwhile one. As hon. members very well know, my riding is not adjacent to any of the oceans which surround the country. I am left at somewhat of a disadvantage. I therefore move:
That the debate on motion No. 3 be now adjourned.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


PUBLIC SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, December 13, 1976, consideration of the motion of Mr. Herbert:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of establishing a special task force to review the Public Service Employment Act and the role of the Commission in personnel management and employer-employee relations in the Public Service and that the review include an examination of the role assigned the Public Service Commission and its relation-
July 15, 1977
[Stage Direction]
ship to the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Public Service Staff Relations Board; and
That the review entail a study of the relationship of the Public Service Commission and the departments and agencies; and consider the development of an audit system for perfomance accountability with respect to matters delegated to departments and agencies under the Public Service Employment Act.
Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Mr. Speaker, 1 chaired the joint parliamentary committee relating to the public service and staff relations within the public service. There was much deliberation. I feel it would not be useful at this time to proceed with this debate, so I move:
That the House do now adjourn.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Call in the members.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Blais) which was agreed to on the following division.
(Division No. 89)
++YEAS
Abbott
Andras
(Port Arthur) Appolloni (Mrs.) Basford Begin (Miss) Blais Blaker
Messrs.
Blouin
Breau
Cafik
Campagnolo (Mrs.)
Clermont
Cullen
Dawson
De Bane
Douglas
(Bruce-Grey)
Drury
Duclos
Dupras
Fleming
Fox
Business of the House
Messrs.
Gauthier	Lefebvre	Philbrook(Ottawa-Vanier)	Loiselle	RailtonGoodale	(Chambly)	RainesGoyer	Lumley	SavardHolt (Mrs.)	MacFarlane	SharpHopkins	Mclsaac	SmithJoyal	Milne	(Saint-Jean)Lajoie	Munro	StanburyLalonde	(Hamilton East)	StewartLamontagne	Nicholson (Miss)	(Cochrane)Lang	Ouellet	TessierLanglois	Pearsall	WatsonLeblanc	Penner	Young-55.(Laurier)	NAYS	Messrs.	Baker	Johnston	Oberle(Grenville-Carleton) Kempling	PaproskiClark	Knowles	Patterson(Rocky Mountain)	(Winnipeg	Pigott (Mrs.)Diefenbaker	North Centre)	RodriguezFraser	Malone	SaltsmanHalliday	Marshall	SchumacherHargrave	McCain	WoolliamsHuntington	Munro	Yewchuk-23.
(Esquimalt-Saanich)


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion carried. The House stands adjourned pursuant to the Standing Order, and to this order just made by the House, until two o'clock on Monday afternoon.
* *
*


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Speaker:: For the convenience of hon. members, we might take a half minute to explore what the business will be on Monday. I do not know if that would warrant to be done by way of a point of order.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to do that. On Monday we will be proceeding with Bill C-60 relating to redistribution in northern Ontario.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, when is Bill C-51 coming up for debate?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Thereafter, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: This House stands adjourned until Monday at 2 p.m.
At 4.50 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
8 002 0-2 5'/!

Monday, July 18, 1977