1977-04-22

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


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. On February 16, 1977 the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) announced that it is the intention of the government to limit growth of the civil service to .6 per cent. In light of the fact that the government has hired 4,464 people at a cost of between $7 million and $8 million through private employment agencies, which is based on the replies I have received from 16 order paper questions covering only 16 departments, which is an indication that the President of the Treasury Board is misleading parliament and the public I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway):
That this House instruct the President of the Treasury Board to order a complete freeze on the hiring of people through private employment agencies by all government departments, Crown corporations and agencies and that the President of the Treasury Board be instructed to table a detailed report stating the actual number of people hired through private employment agencies and at what cost.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation for debate of such a motion pursuant to the standing order can only be done with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the very serious unemployment in areas such as Newfoundland and the pitiful inadequacy of the estimates of the Department of Public Works with respect to concentrating construction projects in areas of high unemployment as evidenced by the fact that the
estimates contain only $237,000 for Newfoundland this year while $63 million 'is provided for buildings in the capital district where unemployment is no greater than the national average, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That the Minister of Public Works be instructed to initiate a program of construction of public works immediately giving priority to construction in areas of high unemployment and delaying projects in areas where unemployment is less than the national average and that the minister consult immediately with members of parliament from districts where unemployment exceeds the national average to receive advice from them on public projects urgently needed and on priorities.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MANPOWER
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion concerning a very important matter.
Considering that projects under Canada Works and Young Canada Works programs must be approved by provincial authorities, that sometimes the views of the two government levels differ and that this may cause delays in the approval of projects as well as the rejection of some of them, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the House ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to table in the House copies of the agreements or arrangements concluded between the federal government and the various provinces on that subject, so that the members of the House might be well informed on the matter.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
80012 -31V2

April 22, 1977
Unemployment



THE CENSUS


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. As it was revealed in committee yesterday that prior to the appointment of census commissioners for the 1976 census of Canada the then minister of industry, trade and commerce submitted a list to Statistics Canada of people who potentially could function as commissioners, and as some
2,000	commissioners were subsequently appointed at a minimum remuneration of $3,000 each, and as it appears the bulk of these commissioners are directly or indirectly active Liberal Party members, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That the aforesaid minister's list be tabled forthwith as submitted to Statistics Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: No!



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The Economic Council of Canada this week released a report called "Living Together: A study of regional disparities" in which it concludes that despite the efforts of the federal government for a decade to narrow regional disparities they remain "intolerably large" and that continued high unemployment is "a national disgrace". The Council further recommends that the mix of government spending should be changed to channel a higher proportion of it to regions of high unemployment. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That the government immediately implement the recommendations contained in this special study.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43 can be put forward for debate only by unanimous consent. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!



THE CENSUS


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the terms of Standing Order 43. Since the cost of the 1976 census of Canada has been estimated at $28 million as contrasted with approximately $10.6 million in 1966 and $4.3 million in 1956, and since the employment connected with this large expenditure of money for the 1976 census has been directed on the basis of what would appear to be a strictly political patronage approach, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens):
That in future the hiring of census commissioners and enumerators be done on a non-partisan basis through Canada Manpower centres so that the considerable employment opportunities provided by the expenditure of a large amount of public funds can be removed from partisan political backgrounds which do not promote confidence in persons entrusted to collect census information.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion, under the terms of Standing Order 43, can be put forward for debate only by unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: No!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I should like to put my question to the Acting Prime Minister. It was revealed in committee yesterday that prior to the appointment of census commissioners for the 1976 census of Canada the then minister of industry, trade and commerce submitted a list to Statistics Canada of people who could potentially act as commissioners. As it appears that most of the commissioners who were appointed and who received a minimum remuneration of $3,000 each are directly or indirectly active members of the Liberal Party, would the Acting Prime Minister make arrangements to have the original list submitted to Statistics Canada tabled in the House?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Acting Prime Minister):: realize that this question is currently before the standing committee. The hon. member will have an opportunity there, as will other members, to press for further information including whatever list he has in mind. I am not aware of such a list nor of the factors which contributed to making up the list but I understand the parliamentary secretary to the minister will be
April 22, 1977

prepared to answer questions of detail with regard to the selection of census commissioners.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Acting Prime Minister. Since in committee yesterday Dr. Perkins stated that he did not know whether it was government policy to have such a list tabled-in fact he did not know if, in effect, the list had been destroyed-would the Acting Prime Minister indicate, if the list is still available, would it be government policy to allow it to be tabled in the House?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether any such list exists but I will consider the hon. member's question. I do not think there is anything particularly tragic about the existence of a list or the possibility of making it available.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, for the Acting Prime Minister regarding a matter of which he will undoubtedly have personal knowledge. As we note that in the case of the riding of Mount Royal all of the commissioners appointed appear to be active Liberals-in fact, one is the sister of the president of the Federal-Provincial Liberal Association of Quebec and president of the Mount Royal Liberal Association-would the Acting Prime Minister indicate, in the case of his own riding, was there this strange coincidence between commissioners who were subsequently appointed and active Liberal workers in his own riding?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The President of the Privy Council may wish to answer the question in general terms. He is not here to answer questions in his capacity as an individual member of parliament but rather as President of the Privy Council. However, he may wish to answer the question in general terms.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that in my constituency of Cape Breton-The Highlands-Canso the commissioners were as well qualified as those in Mount Royal.


PROPOSED USE OF CANADA MANPOWER CENTRES TO RECRUIT COMMISSIONERS
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to address a question to the Acting Prime Minister to which I hope 1 will receive a general answer. Without disputing the quality of his personnel to collect census or the fact that previous administrations may have used the same general procedures, in view of the large amount of money that it is costing the country to take census these days and the need for fairness and equal opportunity, does the Acting Prime Minister recognize the need to change some of these existing practices of political affiliation and bring the test for census gathering ability into the realm of equal opportunity and fairness by using Canada Manpower offices, rather than continuing to use this relic from the dark ages of political patronage?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the whole series of assumptions which
Oral Questions
underlie the question of the hon. member. As I have said earlier, if the hon. member wishes detailed information on the selection of these commissioners, he should address his questions to the parliamentary secretary to the minister.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I was more interested in getting the general commitment that the Acting Prime Minister would take up the matter with his colleague in cabinet, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, to see whether something could be done to change the existing practice. That is really what I wanted to ask the Acting Prime Minister. Would he give that commitment?


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: That is the commitment we want, Allan.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Come on Allan, get up and
say so.


Mr. Clark:: Who is the minister responsible for pork barrelling over there?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question arises from reports that an agreement between Canada and Japan is soon to be signed, within the next two weeks, regarding the sale of uranium and nuclear technology. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is quoted as saying that the embargo on sales of uranium to Japan may be raised as early as next week. Therefore it seems to me that it is important that the House be given some information regarding this agreement.
My question is, therefore, to the Secretary of State for External Affairs or to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, whichever is more familiar with the terms of the agreement. In view of the fact that there are two basic items in the report regarding the agreement, one to do with keeping the level enriched uranium to 20 per cent and the other to do with the right of Canada to veto any transfer of uranium or nuclear technology to a third country, both of which would require very strong monitoring to ensure that there is no violation, I want to ask either of the ministers-whether the proposed agreement will leave the monitoring entirely to the IAEA or whether Canada reserves the right to on-site inspection by Canadian officials? If so, does the government intend to exercise that right?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm to the hon. gentleman that we have been advised from Tokyo that the Japanese

April 22, 1977
Oral Questions
authorities have now accepted all of the principles as laid down by Canada. It is conceivable, as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said, that we could resume shipments within a very short time.
On the specifics of the content of the agreement, the documentation has not reached us as yet. I am referring to the official exchanges. Therefore, I hope the hon. member will understand I am speaking largely on the basis of what is contained in telegrams. On his point regarding the 20 per cent enrichment, that is correct as well as the point regarding the transfer of technology. Concerning the inspection, we would rely on the international inspection agencies. My recollection is that there is also a provision for on-site inspection by Canada should this prove to be necessary or desirable.


POSSIBILITY MERUBENI USED AS AGENT IN SALE OF CANDU REACTOR TO JAPAN-TERMS OF AGENCY AGREEMENT
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that the proposed agreement envisages the sale of a CANDU reactor to Japan, I want to ask the minister whether the Merubeni Company will be the agent in the event of such a transaction. In view of the fact that an agreement was already entered into with that company and was found to be in violation of the guidelines laid down by the Prime Minister, I want to ask the minister what inducements are being offered to Merubeni in the new agreement for accepting a renegotiated agreement and are they as horrendous as the terms which were agreed to with Mr. Shaul Eisenberg when that gentleman's agreement was renegotiated by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the sales agency arrangement with Merubeni, which has been confirmed on a number of occasions by myself in this House, was suspended by AECL some months ago, at about the time the revelations were made by the Auditor General with respect to agency arrangements by AECL generally. So far as I know, no new agreement has yet been reached with Merubeni. I know there have been discussions based on a different set of principles from those which were contained in the original arrangement with the Merubeni Company. It is very likely, as I have said to the hon. member in the past, that a sales agency arrangement will be concluded with that company because AECL believes that a trading corporation can be of considerable assistance in arranging and assisting in the sale of a CANDU reactor in Japan.
(Mr. Jamieson.]


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that some of the worldwide distributors of nuclear reactors and technology such as General Electric and Westinghouse have either never used agents or have discontinued the use of agents, because of some of the questionable business practices in which these agents have engaged, would the minister give the House the assurance that AECL will discontinue, as quickly as possible, the use of agents who seem to have gotten the government and AECL into troubles, as well as Lockheed and a number of other companies. They have found themselves in very questionable situations because of the use of agents of this kind?


Alastair William Gillespie: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to give that undertaking at all. I think it is most important that members understand that to do so would be to put AECL and the CANDU reactor at a very serious competitive disadvantage. There are a number of reasons for that: one is the reason I have already given to the hon. member with respect to doing business in Japan; the second reason the hon. member should recognize is that AECL is not a multinational corporation in the sense that Westinghouse or General Electric are. It does not have a large number of branches around the world and it does not have a large sales department to call upon. If the hon. member wants to effectively prevent or inhibit the sale of CANDU reactors that is the way to go.


MANPOWER
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Considering that under the Canada Works and Young Canada Works programs some projects have been approved by Department of Manpower and Immigration officials and that subsequently the sponsors, after having been informed that their projects were acceptable, were told again that those projects were rejected by provincial authorities, could the minister inform the House if there are some agreements or arrangements establishing the criteria under which programs must be submitted to provincial authorities and what are those criteria so that project sponsors could be informed of the goodwill of provincial authorities and Department of Manpower and Immigration officials and so that we could avoid deluding serious people who would like to participate in the Canada Works program to create employment?
April 22, 1977


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his representations. I hope he will bring to my personal attention any incident or case where that has occurred. In keeping with our undertaking to the provinces, we agreed to consult with them because they felt that in some of the LIP programs and the Canada Works and Young Canada Works programs there may be a duplication of effort or everlapping of responsibilities. They wanted us to consult with them to make certain we were not both spending money on projects or something that was already being provided by the provinces. In the final analysis, however, this is a federal program. I intend to listen very carefully to the MAB groups and to members of parliament. It seemed appropriate that we should consult with the provinces, given the concerns that they have.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, while thanking the minister for his answer, I would like him to tell the House whether there are different criteria or standards for these agreements with provincial governments in order to clarify the matter. I recognize the validity of the answer to the effect that there should not be any overlapping of both programs and that we should not spend money uselessly. I entirely agree on this. But considering that people seriously wonder about specific projects which are not accepted by provincial authorities, this has created a difficulty which will do little to promote mutual understanding in the present state of affairs between Ottawa and the province of Quebec in particular. Therefore, I ask the minister whether it would be possible to clarify the situation not only for a few projects but also in a general sense. I think this would be of great service to Canadian unity.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that if we are going to have co-operation with the provinces, the best way to do that is through consultation and to hear the concerns they express about federal programs where they feel we might be working at odds. It is for this reason we have these consultations and listen to provincial representations. In the final analysis, it is a federal program and if any hon. member feels a program should go ahead notwithstanding provincial objections, I am prepared to look at it to see if we cannot work it out and to consult with the member just as my officials and I have consulted with the provinces.


REQUEST FOR DEBATE ON PIPELINE FROM THE ARCTIC
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that the National Energy Board will not issue its decision on the application for a pipeline from the Arctic until sometime in July, in view of the narrow timeframe that is available and in view of the fact that parliament probably will
Oral Questions
not be sitting during the summer, will the minister assure the House and the people of Canada that arrangements will be made for a full scale debate before a decision is made on the pipeline?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I would expect that the report of the National Energy Board will be made some time during the summer. Whether it is in June or July remains to be seen. I agree with the hon. member that in all likelihood the House will not be sitting at that time and therefore the government will have to wrestle with the question-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alastair William Gillespie: -against the September 1 date. The Prime Minister has indicated he will do everything he can to make a decision prior to that date. I have also encouraged the committee to use its terms of reference to hold hearings, and it has done so with respect to the various applications before the National Energy Board, so that the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Public Works will be fully apprised of the kind of questions with which the government will be wrestling. I hope there will be an opportunity for discussion in the House following the September 1 date or whenever we might come to a decision but that is a matter that will have to be discussed and negotiated with the House leader.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Douglas Charles Neil: In view of the importance of this matter, I feel that arrangements should be made for a full scale debate.
I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the fact that the Berger commission report will be available some time next month, will the minister give assurances to the House that the report will be immediately referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development or, alternatively, a joint committee composed of the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Committee on Natural Resources and Public Works?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: I cannot give that assurance without discussing it with the House leader, and I presume he will want to discuss it with other House leaders. The report will certainly be made public very soon after its reception by me, which will be around May 9. But I know the committees are busy with much business. I think I will have to discuss the proposal with the House leader.

April 22, 1977
Oral Questions


PROPOSAL TO STUDY IMPACT OF ALASKAN PIPELINE ON NATIVES OF NORTHEASTERN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I do have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It is in connection with the appointment of a mini-Berger commission to study the impact of an Alaska or Alcan route for the northern pipeline and the impact which such a proposal would have on the native communities in the Yukon. Would the minister be prepared to extend the terms of reference of that inquiry to take in areas of north eastern British Columbia which would be affected by such a proposal and to protect the Indians in that area?


William Warren Allmand: 1 do not believe I have the jurisdiction to do that. I think that would have to be done by the government of British Columbia.


Frank Oberle: There are quite a number of Indian reserves, all of which may make claims against the government for land settlements, and the minister of course has direct jurisdiction over those lands, which are under federal autonomy.


William Warren Allmand: The panel is set up on a different basis from that of the Berger commission. It is set up under my jurisdiction as Minister of Northern Affairs and not under the Indian aspects of the department. I have not had any request from Indian reserves or bands to extend this inquiry into British Columbia. If I did, I would consider it, but I do not think at this time it would be appropriate for me to do so.


REQUEST FOR DEBATE ON PIPELINE FROM ARCTIC PRIOR TO DECISION BY GOVERNMENT
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources indicated that he hoped there would be some opportunity for parliament to consider the basic question about a pipeline after the decision has been taken. That is simply not good enough for the House of Commons-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: -in relation to a decision whose implications could be as important to the country as the decision to proceed with the St. Lawrence Seaway. I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister to give the House of Commons now, either in his position as Acting Prime Minister or as government House leader, a firm commitment that the House of Commons-even if it means bringing us back here in the summer-will have an opportunity to consider and discuss this matter before a final decision on a pipeline is taken.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: That would make parliament relevant.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: cannot give that kind of firm undertaking.


Mr. Fairweather:: You might as well dismiss the whole place.


An hon. Member:: What are we here for?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I cannot foresee what the elements of the decision might be at this time. It may be that a decision taken by the government on this matter would necessarily come to parliament in the form of legislation, that whatever action is proposed could not proceed without parliamentary approval. So the various options or alternatives are not clearly foreseen by me to the point where I can say in every particular circumstance that parliament will have an opportunity to decide before the government has had an opportunity to make up its mind.


An hon. Member:: That is not the question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Leader of the Opposition knows as well as I do that the normal practice in our system of parliamentary democracy is that the executive takes decisions which are then put to parliament for approval or rejection, and probably in this circumstance that is the practice that will be followed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The fundamental question here is whether the parliament of Canada is worth anything at all, and the indication of the Acting Prime Minister is that, in his view and to his government, it is not worth anything at all.
What we want now is a commitment on this highly important question which has preoccupied northerners and other Canadians for a long, long time, that before a decision is taken there will be an opportunity for the parliament of Canada to consider the reports that have been made and to express its view on this fundamental question. We want that commitment. We do not want any more evasions. We do not want any more undercutting of parliament. We want to know.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We want a commitment from the Acting Prime Minister-with whatever coaching-that parliament will be called back if necessary to give the House of Commons an opportunity to discuss this matter before a final decision is taken. May we have that commitment?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The question that arises in my mind is not whether parliament is worth anything at all; it is whether the Leader of the Opposition is worth anything at all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Charles Joseph Clark: Some years ago we had the observation that members of parliament are nobodies. Now, we have the obser-
April 22, 1977

vation that the institution of the Leader of the Opposition is worth nothing at all.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: That is a position which no one who respects the House of Commons can accept, and I ask the Acting Prime Minister again-a man who has acquired some reputation for respecting this institution-whether he respects this institution enough, and whether this government does, to give us a firm commitment now that this fundamental question of a pipeline will be referred to the House of Commons before a final decision is taken, whether we will have any role to play other than simply pounding the table to support a decision that is taken without consultation with the representatives of the people of Canada by this arrogant government?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there is no question about the necessity of parliament having a role. The difficulty I have in answering explicitly the question of the Leader of the Opposition is that I cannot foresee at the moment the nature of the decision or the nature of the parliamentary action which might be required. I cannot give an open-ended commitment when I am unable to foresee these things; nor is anyone else in this House able to foresee the type of parliamentary action which might be required. That is the difficulty the Leader of the Opposition ought to recognize.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the nature of the decision is not at issue; the nature of the process is at issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: What is at issue here is the distinction between the view of the Acting Prime Minister that parliament should simply be a rubber stamp to whatever the government decides and our view, and the view of any hon. member opposite who respects the institution of parliament, that the representatives of the people of Canada should have an opportunity to consider the reports which are now being prepared before a final decision is taken, whatever those recommendations are. May we have a commitment that parliament will have a relevant role to play and will not be relegated to a position of being a rubber stamp?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in replying positively to the re-statement of the question as to whether parliament will have a relevant role to play. The answer is, of course, yes.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the question here-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am prepared to allow the Leader of the Opposition one further and final supplementary. All of the questions have been repetitions which I have thought
Oral Questions
were proper under the circumstances and in light of earlier questions. Obviously the matter has made some progress; however, I think there is a limit to the number of times a question can be asked.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I simply want some clarification. My question was whether the Acting Prime Minister would give us a guarantee that the House of Commons will have an opportunity to consider this matter before a decision is made by the government. Is that the undertaking he has given? That is the undertaking the House of Commons wants.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I come back to my earlier point. The Leader of the Opposition refers to a decision. What decision does he have in mind? I cannot foresee a prejudgment-[DOT]


Some hon. Members:: Come on.


Mr. Paproski:: You are not that naive.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Hon. members opposite are very restive this morning, as they were yesterday. The Leader of the Opposition has asked for an open-ended commitment that the House of Commons will have an opportunity to deal with the matter before the government has made a decision. The weakness in that question is that it fails to define what that decision is.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Leader of the Opposition cannot foresee it anymore than I can.


Charles Joseph Clark: You have never looked worse.


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Albert B£chard (Bonaventure-lles-de-la-Madeleine):
Mr. Speaker, to that overheated atmosphere, I prefer the peace and quiet of the Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine fishermen.
I should like to put a question to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. In view of the amazing results obtained by the inshore fishermen as a result of the financial participation of the Department of Fisheries and the Environment in the construction of small craft wharves, under LIP-and incidentally, I congratulate the minister on that initiative and his understanding of the fishermen's problems-does his department intend to apply a similar policy and build works of that type under the Canada Works Program?
Hon. Rom6o LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I can indeed confirm that in many ridings groups of fishermen have organized themselves, in
4902

April 22, 1977
Oral Questions
close cooperation with their hon. members who have encouraged them, and that, on both sides of the House, to build works of lasting use. For my part, I am always willing to put at the disposal of groups of fishermen the materials, technical advisers and equipment, where the need for them is proved, to build for their use permanent facilities in fishing villages.


LICENSING SYSTEM ON WEST COAST-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO RECTIFY ALLEGED ABUSES
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same minister. I would like to refer to the fishing industry on the west coast. As the minister knows the present A and B licensing system is restricting fishermen and creating a hardship for many small, independent fishermen. I know that this is not the brainchild of the present minister, but I wonder what he is planning to do in order to do away with the present trend whereby fishing licences are becoming more valuable to fishermen than to the industry, much as the quota system is doing in the poultry industry and in the egg industry.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, the intention of this program was to tailor or adapt the number of licences to the resources available and to ensure a reasonable income for all those involved. The fact is that the licences have gained in value because the number was reduced by my predecessor. The amount of fish has increased because of the development program with regard to B.C. salmon in particular, and the capitalization for buying these licences has now reached a point where it does worry us. I have asked that the licensing program, which remains essentially valid, be reassessed in terms of the distortions which have occurred, the pyramiding of licences and therefore greater capacity in seine size, et cetera. If we can get the person we are looking for, the whole problem will be focused upon in the next months. 1 want a specialist who has a great reputation in this field outside government circles to take on this task, and I am waiting for his answer.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, as the minister knows, the trend has been for large fishing companies to buy up these licences, thereby eliminating small, independent fishermen. Will the minister's program provide some way of restoring some of these licences and restoring opportunities to small, independent fishermen who have been the backbone of the fishing industry and who have provided a large labour resource for the economy there?


Roméo LeBlanc: I would have to examine the facts as stated by the hon. member. My strong impression has been that the west coast fishery remains mainly in control of individual fishermen. In fact, that is one of the attractive features of that industry. I will certainly do nothing to encourage greater consolidation of licences in the hands of a given number of companies. In fact, we have resisted any takeover
[Mr. LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent).J
efforts by foreign-owned companies of greater numbers of licences.


MEASURES TO PROTECT INSHORE FISHERY ON ATLANTIC COAST
Andrew Hogan: 
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FIFTY-MILE LIMIT TO PROTECT INSHORE FISHERMEN- CONSULTATIONS WITH FISHERMEN
Andrew Hogan: which to catch the fish available. I have not made a firm decision on the 50-mile limit. I am suggesting to the hon. member, and I am sure he understands this, that it would not bring about an automatic solution of the very problem we are discussing. These is a group conflict, that is to say, a conflict between groups of fishermen whose interests come into collision. We must manage the fishery, so that everybody has enough, so that not only the strongest catch fish or catch the lion's share.


CONGRATULATIONS ON ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY
Mr. Frank Maine (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State may I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. Could there be initiated some proper and fitting procedure by which significant anniversaries of Canadian municipalities could be recognized? I am asking this question particularly on the occasion of the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the Royal city of Guelph. The city will celebrate its one hundred and fiftieth anniversary tomorrow, on April 23.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Parliament lives.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Allan, say yes or no.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will draw the matter raised by the hon. member to the attention of the Secretary of State, to see whether a general practice can be devised to note these important events. In the meantime I should like to express on behalf of the government, and I am sure on behalf of hon. members, congratulations on the occasion of the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the city of Guelph. We extend our best wishes to the city and hope the years of growth in the future will be celebrated 150 years hence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MULTICULTURALISM
Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, my question was to be directed to the newly appointed minister responsible for multiculturalism, the minister from St. Boniface. Since he is not in the House, and the Prime Minister is not in the House, may I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. Will the Acting Prime Minister give this House and the country assurance that the multicultural section of the Secretary of State's Department, which is again being
Oral Questions
resurrected in time for the next election and is to be handled by the minister from St. Boniface, will not be used exclusively for advertising, that is, for the not very subtle advertising placed in ethnic papers for the Liberal party, thereby again cheapening multiculturalism?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I do not for a moment accept the implications in the hon. member's question. I give him the assurance that the objectives of multiculturalism will not be distorted in any way to serve the interests of any political party.


Steve Eugene Paproski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the government really cares for the one-third of Canadians who are neither of French nor English extraction and if the Prime Minister plans strong action on multiculturalism, please do not play election games with those people.


NEWFOUNDLAND-POSSIBILITY OF AGREEMENT ON OFFSHORE DRILLING OR EXPLORATION BY PETRO-CANADA
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can the minister say if he has had meetings with the ministerial delegation of the government of Newfoundland and has an interim agreement been worked out with that government, to provide for a continuation of exploration and offshore drilling, without being in any way prejudicial to any litigation outstanding before the courts?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think that would be going too far but I think I can say that our meetings to date were useful and constructive, and it may be possible to advance the time for drilling to begin again offshore. I am thinking of drilling off the coast of Labrador in particular. However, we both recognized that decisions with respect to this season have already been taken, for reasons which the House already knows.


POSSIBILITY OF AGREEMENT ON GULL ISLAND HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask if, in the course of working out an interim agreement, pressure could not be brought to bear on Petro-Canada to use some of their financial resources in order to get on with exploration. Finally, may I ask if the question of additional federal funding or financial participation in the development of the Gull Island site or the lower Churchill was discussed, and was an agreement reached in this area?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, on the first point, I cannot help observing the extraordinary ambivalence on the part of the opposition party. In his question the hon. gentleman opposite
4904

April 22, 1977
Oral Questions
made the point that Petro-Canada could play a useful role; indeed, he wishes it to do so, but his leader wants to wind it up. It would be much more helpful to us if you, on your side, could make up your minds as to what kind of role you want Petro-Canada to play. Do you want it to be wound up, or do you want it to be active.


An hon. Member:: That is a glaring inconsistency.


Alastair William Gillespie: To answer the second point with respect to Gull Island, yes, that matter was on the agenda. We discussed it and there will be a further meeting, I hope in a short period of time. The Newfoundland government has not yet been able to up-date the engineering and cost data for which we asked. I expect that may take some weeks. We received that indication yesterday. I look forward to sitting down with those representatives again and I hope we can advance the project.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to do with the ministerial discussions mentioned. Could the minister up-date the answer he gave me before the Easter recess about future financial help to the provincial government with regard to the operation of the Labrador linerboard mill?
[ Translation]


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I can say at this time that we have, of course, read the preliminary report on the matter but that we are awaiting the final report on that mill which should be tabled a task force within the next few days. I must say, however, that the situation does not look very encouraging. I do not know exactly what the final decision will be, but if no industry is willing to buy the mill and operate it profitably, other solutions will have to be found to solve the job shortage problem in the Stephenville area.


MANPOWER
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Since the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion has indicated that the future of the mill is not too encouraging, and since some 2,100 jobs in western Newfoundland are affected, has the minister been involved in the discussions, with a view to having the Department of Manpower help the people who might be laid off find

alternative employment? Could they participate in a retraining program? Or, what help can he offer the provincial government with regard to the threatened lay-offs?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I instructed my officials to watch this matter carefully. If the result of all these discussions is negative, all the services of my department will be made available-our mobility programs, special training and manpower consultative services. Of course, UI officials will be instructed to do everything possible to be accommodating. So far as the responsibilities of my department are concerned, we are following this matter carefully.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Will the minister say, as some Liberal senators are saying in western Canada, if he is preparing legislation to place before this House whereby rates similar to the Crow rates would be made available for the movement of beef and beef products?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It arises out of the exchange between the Leader of the Opposition and the Acting Prime Minister who also happens to be the government House leader-


An hon. Member:: Where is your leader?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: We might ask the same question. Where are all the ministers?


Walter David Baker: -with respect to whether the two reports referred to during the question period are of such a nature that before the government takes any decision on the matter the reports ought to be brought before parliament and, thereby, before the people of Canada immediately for consideration. It is an issue which is important to our country. Some members spoke of the northern parts of Canada. It is certainly important to the native people who live there. It is also important to the southern markets which might be served by such a pipeline. It is a fundamental question involving the development of Canada. The financial resources of this country would be tied up in such a way as to make it a matter that ought not to be decided in the recesses of the government prior to this parliament expressing itself.
Your Honour will recall that questions were put by the Leader of the Opposition following questions that had been raised by the hon. member for Moose Jaw. The issue involved
April 22, 1977

the timing of the two reports. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources stated that those two items, or at least one of them, would come down while this parliament was expected to be in recess, which might make it impossible for parliament to consider the report.
The Leader of the Opposition said quite clearly, succinctly and truthfully that the question of this pipeline is as fundamental to our country as the St. Lawrence Seaway. That it is-and perhaps in many more ways, because it will intrude upon the lifestyle of a great many Canadians. Frankly, I was angered by the attitude of the leader of the government toward the Leader of the Opposition when this very important matter was raised.
I now speak to you, sir, as the Speaker of this House of Commons, the first commoner, about this matter which is of grave importance to the House. It affects the operation of this House of Commons and the rights of members to review and deal with matters of fundamental importance. It has not been lost on members that there has been a tendency by this government to make decisions, upon advice, without consulting parliament. However, this is not an ordinary decision. It will affect a large number of Canadians for years to come. It is not one that ought to be decided by a ministry. It ought to be decided only after this parliament has had an opportunity to be consulted and to deal with the question.
In his answer the minister seemed to indicate that he could not envisage what kind of action would be taken at this point. He could not say how it would be done, whether by statute or in some other way. There have been occasions when this government has not been so devoid of imagination in terms of parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I recognize the interest of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton in the subject, and its importance. However, he has the floor on a point of order. If some disorder did take place during the question period to which he is directing this point, I think I should hear it. Otherwise, he seems to be making an intervention that would more properly be the subject of debate.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I shall do my best to satisfy you on the point. I realize that ministers do not have to answer questions in the House of Commons: they can answer questions facetiously, evade them, or avoid them. It is unfortunate that this is permitted under our rules. I rose primarily because that is what happened today. Ministers can, of course, do that if they wish. However, this issue is of such significance that that practice ought not to have happened.
It is important that parliament and the people of this country understand that in terms of the rules of this House and the way we operate, there is a way in which this matter can be brought before parliament. Quite frankly, that is the approach the government adopted when they wanted to proclaim the Official Languages Act. They found a way to do that. A resolution was brought forward asking for an expression of parliament's views on the matter. That was a very
Oral Questions
historic occasion. I was impressed with the imagination of the government at that time.
Another way to deal with the matter would be to table the reports and allow them to be presented to a committee of the House of Commons, either a special committee-a select committee or a joint committee. There is another method. They could bring in a bill, as they did with the James Bay agreement and a whole host of other matters, incorporating in the bill the draft agreement, which would allow the House to pass on the matter. Even though this may not deal with a specific provision of the Standing Orders, it deals with an important and fundamental aspect of the operation of the parliamentary system in Canada. It is such a fundamental operation that no government, however well-intentioned-and I do not suspect that of this government-ought to be allowed to rely on the excuse that parliament may not be sitting when a decision has to be made. Your Honour, as Speaker of this House of Commons, has the power at any time to summon parliament to deal with a particular matter.
In my experience here of almost five years parliament has been summoned back on matters of emergency on several occasions. We have taken the unfortunate step-it is unfortunate in terms of the process of collective bargaining-of biting the bullet as a parliament and legislating people back to work because there was an emergency. It was done after proper consultation between the then government House leader and the opposition House leader. On one occasion I was involved in those consultations.
This parliament is not bound by its recesses. It ought to be bound by its traditions. One tradition of this place ought to be upheld: objection should be taken on every occasion when there is a danger that it will not be upheld. Parliament ought to deal with matters openly, fairly and concisely, and the people ought to have the opportunity to enter into debate through this parliament and its processes, processes which are available to it and the government in this very fundamental decision.
I feel very strongly about this matter. I was concerned about it before the exchange between the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the government. I am much more concerned about what I see happening in the course of events that I see unfolding in view of the answers given by the government House leader. As government House leader, he has a particular responsibility above all other parliamentarians-except Your Honour-to ensure that this House of Commons operates in such a way that matters of this nature are brought to the attention of the House.
I want to say something else, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I hope the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, as he looks upon this parliament, looks upon it not merely as a place where the adversary interest is highest but as one in which the government, in the course of makings decisions, can call upon the help of members of parliament who represent large areas of the country. I am glad to see he agrees. The decisions eventually reached might be better for the government and, more

April 22, 1977
Oral Questions
important, for the country if ministers had the benefit, before the fact, of advice from the House before decisions are made.
I do not usually try to transgress the rules, Mr. Speaker, but this is such a fundamental matter that I believed I had to raise it in the only way I could while the issue is germane and before the House, that is, by way of a point of order.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Having listened to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, I am not sure there is much division between us on the subject. As far as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is concerned, and as far as I am concerned, let me say we are quite eager to involve parliament in this important question. I have no hesitation in agreeing with the hon. member that it is a matter of fundamental importance.
The standing committee already has before it a reference on energy strategy for Canada, one which is broad enough to permit it to consider the questions which are involved here and to make a contribution. We are certainly ready to co-operate with the committee and to facilitate its work. When the Berger report comes down, it might be a very good idea to refer it to the committee and give the committee an opportunity to examine it, if members of the committee think that would be a useful thing to do.
The hon. member outlined a number of ways in which parliament could be involved in a decision of this kind. It might be through a resolution or it might be through legislation. My view is that it would be unlikely that the government could proceed in this field without seeking legislative approval. I indicated as much in my answer to the Leader of the Opposition-that legislative approval would probably be required before the government could proceed. However, I say this in the dark: I do not know what the finding will be. Neither do we have before us all the facts upon which the decision will be based.
All I was saying was that I could not give, at this stage, an unqualified commitment to come to parliament for approval before taking an unspecified decision in the future, the nature of which is not known to me. That is the situation as I see it, and I do not think there is a gulf of difference between what the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton and I have said on the subject.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: You have said nothing.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Maybe both of us have said nothing.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, there is a fundamental difference between what the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton has been talking about and what the President of the Privy Council has been talking about. The President of the Privy Council has, intentionally or not, sidestepped the whole issue. He says, first of all, that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has referred the matter of an energy strategy for Canada to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works. This
Committee, I would point out, covers the whole field of oil, gas, uranium, nuclear reactors and hydro power.
I would point out that so far we have received no report from the National Energy Board. The minister keeps saying we are jumping the gun when we talk about the Mackenzie Valley pipeline because we have not yet received the report of the National Energy Board. Therefore, the fact that energy policy is being discussed by a committee does not mean that parliament is involved with reference to a final decision on the pipeline.
The minister says, too, that the report of Mr. Justice Berger could be referred to a committee of the House. I think it should be. But I would point out that this report does not constitute a recommendation either to build a pipeline or not to build it. The commission was set up for the purpose of informing the government with regard to the environmental aspects, the dislocating effects on the native people, and so on. Its findings should, of course, be taken into consideration when making a final decision, but the final decision will arise out of the report of the National Energy Board. If it is a favourable report, the cabinet will decide whether or not to accept a recommendation to grant a permit to build a pipeline.
The minister is simply beclouding the issue when he talks about legislation. He knows perfectly well that legislation might very well be brought down after the permit is given. It could be a conditional permit. Later, legislation could be brought in-for example, if there were a question of financial guarantees-but there need be no legislation prior to the decision to grant a permit to build a pipeline, if that is the recommendation of the board.
When the report of the National Energy Board is received, a committee of the House ought to have an opportunity to examine it. That, to my mind, is clear. The government ought to have an opportunity to make its decision. The matter should then be placed before parliament. After all, this is a question affecting the lives of the native people and the environment of the Arctic, as well as having large economic implications- perhaps $10 billion or $12 billion. If the companies concerned ask for financial guarantees, it could be many billions of dollars more. This will have tremendous repercussions for Canada, and the possibility of such a decision being made simply in the executive council seems to me to be a negation of everything we have ever held to be democratic and parliamentary.
I recognize the limitations upon the President of the Privy Council. He must, of course, consult the Prime Minister, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and the cabinet generally. I think he and his colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, agree in their hearts that this matter should come before parliament. I hope this opinion will be shared by the rest of the ministers in the cabinet.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We are, of course, still dealing with what is essentially a non-point of order, albeit an important one. There is a limit on how far we can allow the discussion to

April 22, 1977

go. I should like to conclude the discussion by recognizing the hon. member for Moose Jaw.


Douglas Charles Neil: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I should like to make a few remarks on the point of order which was raised by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton. I support what was said by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. The President of the Privy Council said he is eager to involve parliament in the debate on the pipeline, but he has given no indication of his eagerness in practical terms, certainly not by answering the question which we put to him today.
The construction of a gas pipeline from the Arctic to southern Canada is a "yes" or "no" proposition: it is not a "maybe" situation. Many serious issues need to be considered. The matter is of concern not only to people of northern Canada but to people of southern Canada as well.
The President of the Privy Council says there has been a special reference to the resource committee. The reference to that committee is not one having to do with a pipeline. What I am suggesting is that many issues remain to be considered in the construction of a pipeline. For example, there is the question of energy shortage; there is the question of the environment; there is the question of finance, our balance of payments. Then there is the question of the rate of economic development in the north. I believe it is the right, and the responsibility, of members of parliament, as representatives of the people of Canada, to have the opportunity of making a decision on such an issue of national and vital importance which will affect us not only in the immediate future but for years to come.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton suggested one or two methods that could be used to bring the matter before the House for discussion. It is, of course, for the government to make that decision. However, in closing, Mr. Speaker, if it is felt that the matter cannot be discussed by members of the House until the Berger commission report and the report of the NEB hearings are handed down, we on this side of the House, I am sure, would be happy to return to parliament in the course of the summer to discuss an issue of such vital importance to the people of Canada.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[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: 1,811, 1,827, 1,835, 1,881, 1,901 and 2,143.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Crosbie: 1.	Did the present Secretary of State for External Affairs state in 1974 that Canada would make a Silver Anniversary gift of $1.7 million to the government of Newfoundland and Labrador in honour of the Silver Anniversary of Confederation of Newfoundland with Canada and, if so, what payments, if any, have been made to Newfoundland to date?
2.	Has any amount been paid during the present fiscal year ending March 31, 1977 and, if not (a) will any be paid and, if so, what amount (b) for what reason (c) on what date will the balance be paid?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Departments of External Affairs and the Secretary of State as follows: 1. Yes, the present Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Hon. Don Jamieson, who was in May 1974 Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, stated that the Government of Canada would make a Silver Anniversary gift of $1.7 million to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador in honour of the Silver Anniversary of Confederation of Newfoundland with Canada. Following the submission by the Secretary of State to the Treasury Board, decision was taken in November 1975 that the grant should be made in three payments: $500,000, 1975-76; $600,000, 1976-77; $600,000, 1977-78.
2. Yes, $600,000 has been paid in the current fiscal year 1976/77 and a further $600,000 is earmarked for 1977/78 and will be paid upon approval by Parliament of the 1977/78 Main Estimates. $500,000 was paid against 1975/76 Estimates.


Mr. Smith (Churchill): Do (a) Metis communities qualify (b) Indians on reserves qualify for subsidized day care funding?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Departments of National Health and Welfare and Indian Affairs and Northern Development as follows: (a) The Canada Assistance Plan Act enables the federal government to share in the cost to provinces and municipalities of providing day care services to families who are in need, or who are likely to become in need unless they receive these services. This would also include services to persons residing in Metis communities and to Indians residing off reserve. Provinces are not required under the Canada Assistance Plan to provide services to Indians on reserves including subsidized day care services. Social Services, including day care, come under the provincial jurisidic-tion. The province decides what types of services are provided, for whom, and under what circumstances. Thus, enquiries of this nature should be directed to the provincial authorities concerned, (b) Indians on reserves qualify for subsidized day care funding where these facilities are available, and in accordance with the standards of eligibility applicable in the particular centre. The Department of Indian Affairs and

April 22, 1977
Order Paper Questions
Northern Development has provided some assistance to enable a few Indian Bands to operate day care centres.


Mr. Benjamin: 1.	Has the sealant, placed between the concrete slabs of the runway at Mirabel Airport, deteriorated to the point that it will have to be replaced and, if so, at what cost?
2.	Does the problem of sealant deterioration exist at military airports?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Departments of Transport and National Defence as follows: 1. See Question No. 1,317 answered March 15, 1977.
2. Yes. Some problems have been experienced with premature joint sealant failure at some military bases. As a result specifications for sealant materials and methods of application have been revised.


Mr. Jones: 1.	How many, if any, units of the Canadian Armed Forces are located in the Province of Newfoundland?
2.	What consideration is given by the government and the military of Newfoundland's strategic location for defence purposes and for enforcement and surveillance of Canadian sovereignty?
3.	What consideration has been given to establishing substantial military (air, army and navy) establishments in Newfoundland?
4.	Are the government and military aware of announcements by the Government of France that it intends to increase air and harbour facilities and, if so (a) what view does the government take (b) what effect will this have on Canadian defence and fishing industry?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Departments of National Defence and External Affairs as follows: 1. See statement following Part 4.
2.	The strategic importance of the whole of Canada's Atlantic Coast including, of course, the coast of Newfoundland for defence operations in the North Atlantic and for the protection of Canada's national maritime interests is fully recognized in Canadian and allied defence planning. The strategic value of Newfoundland, in particular, for air defence and maritime surveillance activities finds tangible expression in the regular operational use of facilities in that province for these purposes.
3.	No consideration is being given at present to creating substantial new military establishments in Newfoundland since our present base facilities in the Maritimes amply meet current military requirements.
4.	Yes (assuming that the question refers to Saint Pierre et Miquelon), (a) The improvements to airport and harbour facilities at SaintPierre are matters entirely within the hands of the French authorities. In so far as access to the islands by small Canadian passenger jets would be made possible, the Government welcomes the development of the airport, (b) This

will have no effect on Canadian defence. In view of the interim Fisheries arrangements between Canada and France which are now in place, there will be no effect on the Canadian fishing industry. Units of the Canadian Armed Forces located in the Province of Newfoundland are as follows: Regular Forces: Canadian Forces Station St. John's; Maritime Headquarters Detachment St. John's; Provincial Warning Centre St. John's; 727 Communications Squadron and 72 Communications Group Element St. John's; Regular Support Staff (Atlantic) Department St. John's; Canadian Forces Recruiting Centre St. John's and associated detachment in Cornerbrook; Canadian Forces Naval Facility Argentia; 12 Dental Unit Detachment Gander; University Cadets and Officers; Special Investigation Section St. John's; 880 Surveillance Squadron Detachment St. John's; 424 Transport and Rescue Squadron Detachment Gander; Canadian Forces Station Gander; 226 Aircraft Control and Warning Squadron Gander; 770 Communications Research Squadron Gander. Reserve Forces: 728 (St. John's) Communication Squadron; Newfoundland Militia District Headquarters; 56 Field Engineer Squadron; 36 (Newfoundland) Service Battalion; 36 (Newfoundland) Military Police Platoon; 1 Royal Newfoundland Regiment, its band and associated companies; 2 Royal Newfoundland Regiment, its band and associated companies; HMCS Cabot; Cadets (land, sea and air); Canadian Rangers.


Mr. Leggatt: Does wet snow affect radar and, if so (a) in what manner (b) how is this undesirable effect reduced or eliminated by DOT or DND radar installations?


Ralph Goodale: In so far as the Department of National Defence is concerned: Yes. (a) Effects of wet snow on radar include: The possibility of damage to the antenna system unless covered by radomes; Attenuation of the radar energy to and from the target; Clutter returns (backscatter). However, snow only has an effect which at most is comparable to, and normally less significant than, rain, (b) Using lower frequencies to ensure that path attenuation has no significant effect on target detection. To reduce the level of backscatter received one or more of the following techniques are used: pulse coding, pulse compression or shorter pulse operation; smaller beam width, more directional antennae or multiple beam antennae. To reduce or eliminate backscatter returns after reception, the following signal processing schemes are used: Circuitry which prevents saturation by high level clutter returns; Circuitry which removes the mean value of the background clutter; and moving target indication techniques which eliminate stationary or slow moving clutter. In addition to the above, all DND surveillance radars have Identification Friend or Foe/Secondary Surveillance Radar (IFF/SSR) facilities which complement primary radar returns and IFF/SSR is virtually unaffected by weather clutter.
In so far as Transport Canada is concerned: (a) Wet, falling snow can impair the performance of Radar. Wet snowflakes reflect transmitted radar energy back to the receiver as radar
April 22, 1977

echoes. If the snowfall rate is intense, the reflected energy from each snowflake combine and appear as one large echo on a radar display. Therefore, an echo from an aircraf flying in this snowfall would be completely obscured, (b) DOT Aircraft-Surveillance Radars overcome this undesirable effect by: (1) Using low radar frequencies (L-band) which penetrate wet snow more readily than higher frequencies. (2) Transmitting and receiving radar energy using circular polarization which suppresses echoes from wet snow, but not aircraft. (3) Using moving target indicator (MTI) circuitry which cancels stationary or low velocity echoes and not the high velocity aircraft echoes. In all except the most severe snowfall conditions, these techniques eliminate the undesirable effect of wet snow. It should be noted that the reflectivity of wet snow increases with an increase in frequency of the energy radiated from a radar. This phenomenon is taken advantage of in weather radars maintained by DOT for Environment Canada, Atmospheric Environment Services. Weather radars operate at approximately three times the frequency of aircraft-surveillance radars and thus readily detect the presence of a weather system that contains wet snow.


Mr. Halliday: Did the government, during the past two years, loan or grant money to a company in Prince Edward Island by the name of West Royalty Hydraulics or a similar name and, if so (a) in what amount (b) for what purpose (c) under what terms?


Ralph Goodale: In so far as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is concerned: Yes. West Royalty Hydraulics Ltd. of West Royalty, Prince Edward Island, accepted an offer of a development incentive grant under RDIA, of $54,324 on May 28, 1976, to establish a new facility in West Royalty, Prince Edward Island, for the manufacturing of heavy hydraulic systems. The offer is subject to all the provisions of the Regional Development Incentives Act and Regulations.
In so far as the Department of Manpower and Immigration is concerned: The department has participated in two contracts with West Royalties Hydraulics Ltd., for the purpose of employee training under the Canada Manpower Industrial Training Program. Grants or loans are not provided under this program but assistance is in the form of a reimbursement of a share of the costs incurred by West Royalty Hydraulics Ltd., while training employees under the program. The details of the contract are as follows: Contract No. 1: Date of Contract: November 15, 1976. Purpose: To train a Hydraulics Technician. Maximum Cost to Canada: $2,280. Course Duration: 20 weeks. Contract No. 2: Date of Contract: February 14, 1977. Purpose: To train a Machinist Apprentice. Maximum Cost to Canada: $1,560. Course Duration: 20 weeks.
Order Paper Questions


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 128 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


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


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Herbert:: Mr. Speaker, about a month ago I drew to the attention of the parliamentary secretary a series of questions which I placed on the order paper in December last year, questions Nos. 1424 to 1449. Those questions asked for the names and dates of appointment of deputy ministers. Question 1442, for example, asked for the name and date of appointment of the deputy minister of veterans affairs. In an article in the newspaper yesterday it was stated that the deputy minister of veterans affairs was Mr. Bruce Brittain. Surely Mr. Bruce Brittain must know the date of his appointment.
The reason for placing these questions on the order paper in December of last year-four months ago-was that the government had announced a royal commission on financial management and accountability, and one of the terms of reference of that royal commission is the evaluation of the administrative performance of deputy ministers. If, after four months, a deputy minister is unable to answer a question about who he is and on what date he was appointed, surely that is a serious reflection on the administrative performance of the deputy minister. I would be very pleased if the parliamentary secretary would bring to the attention of the department that four months is, surely, too long to leave such questions unanswered.

April 22, 1977
Scientific Activities of Government



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, December 13, 1976, consideration of the motion of Mr. Faulkner (for the Prime Minister) that Bill C-26, respecting the organization of certain scientific activities of the government of Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, when I last had the opportunity to speak on Bill C-26 1 was pointing out to the House that Canada faces a very serious trade imbalance with respect to the manufacture and export of relatively high technology products. In fact, we quoted figures which had already been put before the House showing that that imbalance was approximately $8.2 billion. I suggest that one of the reasons we are living with imbalances of that magnitude is that this government has been out of touch with reality so far as the importance of research and development is concerned, especially in industrial terms, throughout the world.
I think it is most regrettable that a review of the figures supplied, not by this government but by the government of the United States, reveals how poorly Canada fares in relation to research and development budgets compared to other countries of the world. The last time I spoke I referred to the international economic report of the President which was transmitted to the Congress of the United States in March, 1976. This kind of information is not available in Canada, for some reason. On page 119 of that American report it is stated, for example, that research and development expenditures, as a percentage of the gross national product in 1963 and 1973, the two years that were compared, amounted to .3 per cent of the gross national product in Canada, whereas in the United States, for the same period, the total funding of research and development in industry amounted to 1 per cent. In other words, the Americans spent more than three times as much on research and development than we did in the two years to which I have referred.
As for funding by government, the same lack of attention was shown in Canada in the two years to which I have referred. Funding on research and development, as a percentage of the gross national product, in Canada was between one-third to one-half of the comparable level in the United States. Other countries also show how deficient we have been in this respect. For example, in 1973, compared to our .3 per cent of the gross national product being funded by industry for research and development, France spent twice as much. West Germany spent 1.4 per cent of its gross national product, as did Japan, compared to our .3 per cent. In the same year, 1973, the United Kingdom spent .8 per cent. In short, every

country listed in the report which was submitted to the United States Congress was well ahead of Canada in terms of expenditure on research and development, both on the part of government and on the part of industry.
That is why we on this side of the House are saying that it is time the government was alerted and got in touch with reality. What is the point of the Minister of Finance decrying in his budget speech the fact that we have an end product trade deficit at the present time of over $10 billion? What is the point of emphasizing that and, so far as research and development are concerned, allowing the deficiency to which I have referred to continue?
Mr. Speaker, this deficiency can be corrected very quickly. Surely the government realizes this. The fact is that one of our problems in this country is that we have a disproportionate amount of our industry controlled by those who are resident in foreign countries. That is known. The fact that it is known does not mean that the government cannot take action to ensure that we get our pro rata share of research and development which is being conducted by the multinational corporations concerned. If the American parent, the United Kingdom parent or the West German parent of a Canadian company intends to spend $1 million on research and development, surely we should, through moral suasion, if not by other means, make sure that that multinational corporation gives a percentage of the research and development activity to the subsidiary that is carrying on business in Canada.
I would like to hear representatives of the government comment on that matter. To what extent have they tried to use moral suasion to ensure that we get a better slice of the research and development activity that is taking place in multinational corporations which have subsidiaries in this country? I was shocked to hear that the then minister of state for science and technology said, when this point was raised, that somehow Canadians were well off. He said we got the advantage of the research and development that was being carried out by multinational corporations. We got the spillover, in effect. How ridiculous!
The minister was indicating that Canada should be second-class and should only receive the used material after the original research and development had been obviously exploited by the country which originally carried it out at the parent company level. That is not good enough. If we wish to enhance our position in the world as far as the manufacture of our high-technology goods is concerned, we must ensure that there is in this country a pro rata share of the research and development which is being carried on, in order to allow us to catch up with the rest of the world and not fall farther behind.
When the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Faulkner) spoke on this bill initially, as I recall it he said that the chief thrust of the legislation was to deal with federal support of research in the nation's universities. We have no particular quarrel with that. He went on to say that he promised to have more to say at another time about support of
April 22, 1977

industrial research and research in the government's own laboratories.
The transfer of research and technology to the manufacturing sector remains one of the nation's most pressing problems. The hard figures show that our industries are not as competitive in world markets as they should be. I have referred to the figures we have received from the Americans. I also point out that it has been noted that in France, West Germany, Japan, The Netherlands, and Sweden the average is that about 25 persons per 10,000 are engaged in industrial research and development. In Canada the figure is only eight persons per 10,000. In short, only about a third of our working force is engaged in some type of research and development in industry.
The Science Council of Canada, in report No. 24 of December, 1975, when discussing the critical shortage of industrial research in Canada said at page 8:
New technology is one of the essential components of industrial innovation, and it has been long recognized that there is a need for much more innovation in Canadian industry. The issue has now become an extremely urgent one. Manufacturing industry in Canada is disturbingly weak and dominated by foreign firms. When so many other nations with resource-based economies are putting such new emphasis on strengthening their own manufacturing sectors, we cannot afford to be left behind. The time to act decisively is now, before our unfavourable technological situation deteriorates any further.
The report, after criticizing the government's lack of interest in transferring technology to the manufacturing sector, says the chief aims of government research in this country have been directed to the primary industries-agriculture, fishing, forestry. At page 10 the report strongly urges the government to "stimulate innovation in secondary manufacturing industry". Rather than heed this advice from the Science Council of Canada back in 1975-there were even earlier warnings of declining industrial innovation in 1968-the government chose to bring before us the bill we are now debating, which accomplishes little more than a bureaucratic reshuffling of administrators. I am referring to report No. 2 entitled "Toward a National Science Policy". An additional layer of advisers is not what this country needs to compete more effectively in a market which demands ever-increasing technological sophistication.
Nowhere in the vague generalities of the minister's opening comments on this bill is there any indication of the government's understanding of the seriousness of the situation to which I have referred. In fact, the only concrete action to be taken by Bill C-26 is that it will increase the number of councils from four to six, with four of these to be directly engaged in granting schemes. In the segregation of the granting functions by scientific fields and the proliferation of administrative staff necessary to implement this bill, the goal of cycling more money into research, principally industrial research, becomes even further removed.
My colleague, the hon. member for Athabsca (Mr. Yew-chuk) has pointed to the model of an integrated granting agency such as the United States national science foundation as offering the advantage of utilizing common management and financial services with substantial savings in administrative costs. Under Bill C-26 we are redistributing our already
Scientific Activities of Government meagre allotment of funds for research among a great number of administrative bodies, with even less eventually to be used in research.
The government's total budget for all scientific research in Canada amounts to only $160 million. This represents only about 40 per cent of the level of the scientific funding of other western nations.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: This further watering down of our research dollar is inexcusable, especially since a Senate subcommittee has recommended that a single minister be given responsibility for all grants programs, as is done in the United Kingdom by the minister of education and science. The way Bill C-26 is structured, each granting council will report to a different minister to be designated by order in council. There will be an additional layer of bureaucracy in the proposed intercouncil co-ordinating committee, a function which could be adequately fulfilled by a centralized ministry responsible to all the council.
Mr. Speaker, I noticed the minister took exception to my saying $160 million was expended in scientific research at the governmental level. The fact is that that is the amount expended on industrial research. That is what I am referring to. Naturally, I would like to see further resarch funding as far as our universities are concerned. I would like to see further funding for medical research. Surely that makes better sense than spending billions of dollars in trying to relieve diseases that people have contracted. It makes better sense to spend more money finding cures for those diseases, as opposed to simply trying to come up with schemes to look after people when they have contracted the disease.
The main thrust of what I am saying is one of the most imperative problems facing this nation; that is, our trade imbalance. Economically, this country is not prospering. We have had a trade deficit in the last few years which in the aggregate is greater than the trade deficit of the United Kingdom, the United States, West Germany, Japan, France and Italy together. Yet we are a comparatively small country in relation to those nations. It is time this government became aroused and realized it is their lack of attention to ensuring proper research and development for our industrial activities that is causing this trade imbalance to mount year by year.
In short, Mr. Speaker, as this bill goes to committee I hope the government will be pressed to give an assurance that they will use moral suasion to request that subsidiaries operated in this country, especially in the high technology fields, give the local subsidiary a pro rata share of the worldwide research and development activities. I think this is the least the government should do.
I hope the government can also put forward a clearcut industrial strategy for this nation within which the place for research and development is spelled out more clearly. The transition that may be needed in certain industries from relatively high labour content activities to higher technology

April 22, 1977
Scientific Activities of Government activities should be better defined and encouraged by government. Finally, the government should structure their economic system-tax system, if you like-to ensure that research and development will become a more attractive expenditure for Canadian industry than it is at the present time.
This may appear to be a rather insignificant bill, Mr. Speaker, but I can assure you that its subject matter is one of the most serious things that faces this country. We are a young country, a country that should be leading the world in innovation and in our anxiety to make sure that proper technology is developed here. Unfortunately, we are acting more like the granddad of the world; we are trailing other nations in research and development. This government, through lack of leadership, must bear the heavy burden of that inadequacy.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I should like to participate briefly in the debate on second reading of this bill. I am pleased to see that the minister is in the chamber, accompanied by the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Maine), who before he entered parliament was well known for his scientific activity and his great interest in scientific matters. I see the minister has the hon. member seated next to him, possibly to obtain advice and counsel on this legislation.
One of the reasons I enter this debate is that I want to deal with the facet of the bill which concerns new social sciences and humanities research. Before the bill goes to committee- which for some reason, I understand, is the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates-I want to raise some matters so that in committee we may be able to obtain answers and perhaps undertakings which would sit well with people interested in this aspect of the bill, particularly with the academic community.
The government is correct in saying, as it did in the background information fact sheet, that during the last few years a number of studies have been made of the manner in which research moneys are to be distributed in the area of social sciences and the humanities. Various bodies, learned societies and research councils have recommended a split in the existing Canada Council. This split would have the effect of leaving the arts division of the Canada Council as the only part of a restructured council, and taking away from it and setting up as a separate research body the humanities and social sciences division of the existing council.
A number of reports have been prepared and studies have been made, including the Timlin report, by Mabel Timlin of Saskatchewan whose memory is so revered there; the Macdonald report; the OECD report; the Lamontagne report, by Senator Lamontagne who was a keen advocate of this legislation; the Humanities Research Council of Canada report; and the Social Sciences Research Council of Canada report. The last two bodies are not granting agencies but are federations of many learned societies. They tend to promote professional interests and to support academic publications, but as I understand it they do not overlap the research activities of the Canada Council.
There are, of course, those who have not been entirely enthusiastic about this legislation. The minister will be aware of the statement of Gertrude Laing and editorials by people who might have a particular interest in the Canada Council. I will make reference to the Ottawa Journal and the comments made editorially by Mr. John Grace who has had some interest in Canada Council matters.


Mr. Faulkner:: And my letter of reply.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I will allow the minister to make his reply in his own thorough manner, Mr. Speaker. What is not clear, given the desire for the split on the part of so many bodies and societies, is the implication for research in the humanities and social sciences under a new granting agency with a different set of relationships to the government. I think this, with great respect, is what concerns a fairly substantial number of people within the academic community.
I should also like to hear from the minister at the committee stage what the reorganization cost will be. This is important at a time when we as parliamentarians, regardless of party, are concerned with restraint in government spending and the cost of government. I think it also concerns a substantial number of people within the academic community, and the minister should address himself to it. I have heard estimates of from $750,000 to $1 million.
I should also like the minister to elaborate on the basis of the split and the way in which it has been done. I raise this matter in the context of splitting the arts from the other pursuits of the new council. I do not know if it is unfair to artists to say they are generally, or even notoriously, naive in political and governmental affairs. The artistic temperament is sometimes said not to include business ability or to be able to articulate support for their own enterprises or to deal with the labyrinth of government bureaucracy in order to acquire funds for worth while projects. Be that as it may there is concern that the arts may lose more from this split than the social sciences and the humanities, because they will be on their own when it comes to obtaining funds.
The model for the proposed sciences and humanities research council is the Medical Research Council, a body which was hived off from the National Research Council a few years ago. According to reports which I have, the Medical Research Council was tailor-made for its first president. I question the wisdom of adopting a model from one area of scientific inquiry as an appropriate model for another. This should be self-evident to anyone who thinks seriously about the nature of scientific research in both the humanities and the social sciences.
These are points I want to raise at committee. I raise them for the minister now so that he will be prepared to answer them and to see if provision can be made for amendment to the bill. Let me give a small example. Under section 6(1) and (2) and section 8, the bill on organization, the president is to be a full-time paid person of the commission. He is to be appointed for a five-year term. Yet no provision is made for a full-time vice-president who would taker over in the event the president

April 22, 1977

is incapacitated. There might be some merit in making this additional appointment to ensure the continuity of activities within the council.
The structure and constitution of the council are of far greater import. Because of the nature of the subject matter, social scientists and humanists often pursue research matters that are controversial and, indeed, politically embarrassing on occasion, or politically dangerous. Their search for truth and their pursuit of verifiable facts, in my submission, makes independence from government control essential. The present Canada Council, I suggest, is structured in such a way. But if under the new legislation the council, appointed by the government for three-year terms, is made up of specialists and professionals in the social sciences and humanities, no buffer would exist, as at present with the academic advisory panel, between the academics and what is sometimes termed the cruel outside world.
The current council has a mixed lay and specialist membership. It is not really made up of practitioners of the trade, that is to say, academics; rather, it has a nice balance of business, professional, artistic and academic people. If the new council were to be made up of academics alone, then we would certainly be seen, whenever anything controversial came up, to be protecting their vested interests. I think the matter is still important enough to raise, that is to say, the need to have an advisory body below the council, free of government, not appointed by the government but, rather, by the council on recommendations of universities, learned societies, and so on, and able to exercise independent judgment on academic matters.
I think the most important matter has to do with the possibility of the government referring matters to the new council. There has been some reaction to this question by the minister, but the reference of matters by the government to the new council for research is most important. Under the present system it is my understanding that such could not be the case. Under the proposed legislation, section 16(1), the new body will be made "an agent of Her Majesty". I would like to obtain from the minister a clarification, not only on the record, but an assurance that he will look at the drafting of the legislation to make certain that the term "an agent of Her Majesty" will not be misunderstood. This may be a totally innocuous phrase and may simply be dismissed as a legal nicety to ensure our transfer to a new category B, similarily to a department, subject to the Civil Service Act, the Financial Administration Act, and so on. It may, however, have deeper meaning in that the government could refer matters to the new council for research.
I think, also, that along these lines we should look specifically at the wording of section 5(l)(b) which relates to the minister "referring". The minister himself, in the course of a news release around the early part of December-December 2, I believe-said he would request funds for council programs relating to regional balance, national problem areas and inter-
Scientific Activities of Government disciplinary research. This could well constitute interference in the affairs of the new body, for it must be independent to support the sort of research it feels-through its own elaborate evaluation system, I grant you-warrants support on the basis of this evaluation process, rather than whatever the government of the day decides is appropriate research to be carried out by the council.
The new council may well support studies relating to regional balance, etc., but I repeat that this would only come after it had received applications and assessed them through the normal evaluation routes. The government has 29 or 30 departments to study regional balance, so why should it have to turn the new agency into yet another? Even if the minister says he is not going to do so, the potential is there, given the suggested relationship between the government and the council in the bill.
On the matter of evaluation procedures, the Canada Council now has elaborate and well developed procedures. They have much to be proud of in those procedures and, I suggest, they are the envy of granting agencies in other countries. But they are necessarily different from those used by the Medical Research Council and, indeed, the National Research Council, at least in some respects. Does the government intend, not so much through the legislation as through the powers available to it under the Financial Administration Act and through the Treasury Board, to force upon the new council different ways of assessing research applications? I would very much appreciate the minister, in the course of his deliberations in committee, telling us the policy of the government in this connection.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, at one o'clock I was in the process of making some points to which I felt the minister might address himself during the course of committee consideration of this bill. I referred earlier in my remarks to the fact that in the particular area in which I am interested, that is, the new social sciences and humanities research council, there has been in existence up to now in the Canada Council an advisory academic panel, the purpose and function of which has been to make recommendations to the Canada Council respecting research grants.
I think it is important and of interest to put on the record some of the suggestions made by that panel with respect to any restructuring of the Canada Council as contemplated by this legislation. These recommendations were made after the intention of the government was announced in the Speech from the Throne starting the session of 1974 and, as we all know, it has

April 22, 1977
Scientific Activities of Government taken since then for this bill to come to this point. However, it has been the intention of the government for some time to restructure the activities of the Canada Council. The position of the advisory academic panel is stated in the following recommendation:
The present programs and methods of operation of the Humanities and Social Sciences Division of the Canada Council have evolved out of the needs of the disciplines it serves. Research in these disciplines varies greatly in subject matter, methods and organizational needs. It is sometimes controversial and is often of immediate significance for questions of public policy. For these reasons it is inappropriate to model support for the humanities and social sciences on that provided for the medical and natural sciences.
For the benefit of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), pro tem who is now in the chamber-my geographical but not political friend, I should add-I am pointing out some of the observations of the advisory academic panel which underline, 1 think, the point I was making earlier. In as much as the whole question of the structure in this particular instance and the similarity to the Medical Research Council is one that I am not altogether sure is appropriate-because they are two different enterprises, so to speak-I am hopeful that the Minister of Science and Technology might in this context have a look at the criticism which I make, with the idea of possibly giving his opinion and accepting some suggestions or amendments which might improve the operation and function of this council.
The advisory academic panel went on to make certain specific recommendations which I would like to bring to the attention of the House. One of the recommendations was as follows:
That the new council be empowered to act as a board of public trustees, and to this end should include laymen as well as scholars. It will be necessary for the new council to exercise policy judgments and a degree of external control which a body composed only of professionals could not visibly exercise.
It seems to me that a mix of professionals and laymen is a very worthwhile objective which we would all support so there could not be the suggestion that a group, panel or body comprising exclusively professionals or academics in a particular area would be involved in self-service but, rather, that the general point of view was being expressed in an independent way. The recommendations went on to point out the following:
That the present system of evaluation of research projects through the use of external assessors be retained.
Prior to one o'clock I mentioned the desirability of having this kind of structure below the council which would be available to recommend policy as far as the council was concerned. I want to conclude my remarks by referring to a point of view expressed in an editorial in the Ottawa Journal of December 20, 1976, because I think it underlines some of the objections and points of view which have been taken by a fairly substantial number of people across Canada. I commend this editorial to the minister for the purpose of discussion in committee. The editorial was written by John W. Grace, who has had a long association with the Canada Council and, therefore, has knowledge of the past workings of that body. It is important, therefore, for the committee to consider these opinions when discussing the structure of the proposed council. The editorial reads in part:
[Mr. Hnatyshyn.)
The Canada Council has two integral functions from its creation about 20 years ago. The more visible function has been the funding of the arts in Canada ... the less publicly recognized council activity has been the support for university research in the humanities and the social sciences;...
Bill C-26-
That is the bill we are now discussing-
-would hive off the second function and make that the responsibility of a new council to be called the social science and humanities research council. The present Medical Research Council would inherit NRC's historic responsibility for support for the 'life sciences', including biology.
All this does is satisfy an urge for Cartesian logic. It looks tidier. That is about all the accomplishment. Five councils will be required to do the worK, of three- proliferating administrations at a time when the government is preaching restraint.
The editorial continues:
The division of the Canada Council ends the fruitful cross-fertilization of the arts and the universities ...
The Canada Council has built up an international reputation for the scrupulous independence of its judgment and the competence of its service to its university constituency. The council may be justifiably criticized for supporting some silliness; it has never been legitimately accused of submitting to political pressures. The Canada Council has allowed researchers to follow their own intellectual curiosity, not imposing directions in the name of national policy, however well-intended.
Again I call on the government to give an unequivocal undertaking, to be demonstrated by changes to the bill, that the government will not interfere in the work and operation of this council and that there will not be the possibility of such interference. I continue quoting:
The defenders of Bill C-26 will say that the new council will be independent. But it will be subservient to the Ministry of Science and Technology in a way that the Canada Council, with its own act, could never be a creature of the Secretary of State. The body which is charged with supporting research in literature, history, political science and the rest of that honourable catalogue is yoked into 'an act respecting the organization of scientific activities'...
The relatively few academics . .. who have supported the legislation have done so mainly in the naive belief that their cause will receive more money. It is estimated that a new council will cost an extra three-quarters of a million dollars in new administrative expenses. That is where the extra new funds will go.
The concluding paragraph of the editorial contains these words:
If council's views are considered self-serving, the opinions of the academic community should be sought.
When the bill is considered in committee, I hope that members of the academic community will bring forward their views. They should be encouraged to bring forward their points of view, suggestions, recommendations and criticisms, for only in that way can we improve the bill and make it the best possible legislation for all concerned.


Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak on Bill C-26 respecting the organization of scientific activities of the government of Canada. It is an important subject. I am puzzled why a bill so basic to our way of life and well-being should be smuggled in for consideration at second reading for such a brief period. I know that second reading involves agreement in principle. I suppose the present procedure is a reflection on our peculiar priorities. I
April 22, 1977

will try to be brief in my remarks this afternoon because much of what I wanted to say on the bill has already been said.
Science, of course, is a two-edged sword. It provides us with the good life, it seeks to cure our worst problems and tries to provide us with a good lifestyle. It is the responsibility of the federal government to ensure that our limited resources are put to the best possible use and that we use our resources efficiently and effectively to gain the ends we seek. This is no easy task. Much wisdom and determination is evident in this bill. 1 see before us the potential for a great deal of progress. We shall be led into a new era by science. I do not think we should be misled by the fact that many of the provisions of the bill appear to be technical or administrative changes. The potential effects of the bill are much greater than that.
As has been mentioned several times, we are to have two new granting councils: the natural sciences and engineering research council, which will be involved with the physical sciences, and the social sciences and humanities research council. There is to be an intercouncil co-ordinating committee which will involve both new councils. There is a second major change in the bill. There is to be a change in the mandate of various research organizations answering to the government, namely, the National Research Council, the Canada Council, the Science Council, the Defence Research Board, and the Medical Research Council-the latter being particularly close to my interests.
I should like to touch on three main areas of concern. First I shall raise the role of the federal government in the conduct of scientific research; second, stemming from my background in medicine and pharmaceutical research, the implication for health research contingent upon the proposed enlargement of responsibilities for the Medical Research Council; and, third, the role of private industry in promoting research in this country.
Our government must play a co-ordinating role in science. Without doubt, there is need for a greater co-ordinating role. The federal government has the right to do this, even though traditionally and constitutionally this field has fallen under provincial responsibility. Really, my point relates to the old saying that "he who pays the piper calls the tune". It is a fact that the federal government is the largest single source of money for research activity in this country.
We are responsible for making sure that our research is conducted in the most efficient way, which means that we must get the best results with the lowest expenditure. That, also, means the smallest waste of our resources. In this respect, I feel we ought to put more emphasis than we have in the past on what I call mission-oriented research. We need to make certain that the federal government gives direction in that respect. Such activity ought to be placed in direct contrast to so-called curiosity-oriented research which is done in our halls of ivy, in academic circles and cloistered laboratories. Such research is done purely for the purpose of extending knowledge, and not always with concrete results in mind for the betterment of mankind. In other words, such research brings about little which ordinary people can use.
Scientific Activities of Government
Our work these days must be done in a much broader context and people in research, including those in our universities, must be aware of this. This is an age-old problem. Both kinds of research must be supported. However, in these days, when we are labouring under economic restraint and a restraint of our physical resources, there must be a well defined basis of relevance for all research, particularly basic research.
That brings me to the role of the granting councils of the government. I am thinking of the way in which those councils solicit research or obtain the sort of research this country needs through the use of our centralized information facilities. It is felt that the benefits of the new system will be several. Such work will be done more cheaply and quickly and will lead to more predictable results. That point bears directly on the role of government and is important.
I come now to my second concern, the role of the Medical Research Council. I am thinking of medical research and what it will do for the health of the people of this country. I think this bill has the potential for directing our health research into areas in which we urgently need it. It is not always so. There is a great deal of curiosity-oriented research in the health field. It has been mentioned by several members in this debate, notably by my colleague, the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Maine), that the MRC needs a new mandate.
While it is a technically simple change as it reads in the bill, it indicates a very significant and fundamental shift in the role of the MRC, a shift which is certainly in line with another program of the Department of National Health and Welfare called "The New Perspective on the Health of Canadians", a program I have mentioned many times, as have other members. Remarkably, only a few words were changed in the Medical Research Council Act, but those words are of enormous significance.
In the past, our main problem has been physical illness. Our least concern has been with preventing illness, promoting positive health, fitness, and so on. We have been too busy trying to cure illness that has already occurred. Therefore, in the act there was very little provision for preventive or public health research. The words "other than public health research" which prevented that will now be dropped. That is long overdue.
This is one of the healthiest nations in the world in terms of medical facilities, treating illness and looking after people who report to us sick. We have the hospitals, nurses, everything we need, yet somehow we still seem to have a great deal of illness. It is peculiar and disappointing for a country of this affluence. This is the direction we need to go in the future. We think we can look after most of our physical illness barring some very necessary breakthroughs in certain diseases such as heart disease and cancer, those which still cause serious illness and the highest rates of death. However, most of our health problems are preventable, social, and in many cases imaginary. Very little has been done in this field.

April 22, 1977
Scientific Activities of Government
As a nation, we may not be very ill but we are not in very good shape. By way of example, and without meaning to be the least bit partisan or personal, I would like to review a study on nutrition that was done last year by the CBC. it was done on federal members of parliament. There were some very interesting results which I would like to quote. First, Conservatives averaged 1416 pounds of excess baggage; New Democrats, 16 pounds-


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: What?


Frank A. Philbrook: -Socreds, 30; and the Liberals, although they were the lightest of the heavyweights, still weighed in 13 pounds too much. Second, nine out of ten MPs let their jobs affect their eating habits. That will come as no surprise, especially after lunch. Third, out of an over-all nutrition score of 100, hon. members of this institution failed, with a miserable average score of 42-less than 50 per cent. Fourth, typical of the irresponsible attitude of some MPs toward their eating habits is a comment made by one member who said, "I eat only junk food. I like it."
In comparison to this sorry state of affairs were the comments made by Dr. Zach I. Sabrey, a nutritionist and syndicated columnist. He said doctors-and I strongly agree-are trained and taught only how to treat the sick, not the healthy or disease-free. He stated that, as a result, a recent analysis has determined that about 40 per cent, or $916 million of all hospital care costs in Canada, are spent on the treatment of nutrition-related diseases each year. We know that only a tiny fraction of the training of a medical doctor is on the subject of nutrition. Even more shocking, Dr. Sabrey estimates that the yearly loss of productivity due to premature death from these diseases costs in the order of $4.75 billion. There, for anyone who may feel that health is an optional subject, is the real kicker because to most of us money is very, very important.
We also know the problems associated with other areas, some of which are now receiving some attention and getting some results, such as automobile accidents, the related area of seat-belt use, and lower speeds, smoking, alcohol, drug abuse, the lack of fitness and sport for most of our people related to our Participaction program. There is a very high incidence of psychological illness in this country-over 50 per cent of all illness that is reported. That is a serious problem, one in which we are now just beginning to get correct direction and enough research money to handle it. Many lives and dollars can be saved. However, we will still have to fight this problem in terms of our own attitudes, people in the field and public attitudes resulting in the fact that there is little research in preventive medicine and social sciences and very little public demand for it.
What are some of the fields which have been ignored and on which we should concentrate? Very briefly, programs aimed at particular segments of the over-all population as opposed to individual episodes of sickness; investigation of improved and more cost-benefit effective modes of health care delivery; research in the field of occupational health hazards; research into mental illness associated with environmental and lifestyle;

future-oriented research aimed at anticipating health threats and opportunities; research concerning the long-range influence of environmental health hazards. One could go on indefinitely, Mr. Speaker.
Finally, I would like to touch briefly on something that concerns me very much. This is the role of private industry in promoting research. From my experience-and this is unfortunate-it is certainly very different in other countries, and they have had better results in this respect than Canada. Private industry seems to remain isolated in our Canadian community, for some reason or another. There are many facts associated with this fact and many reasons for it. One, there seems to be a traditional classic attitude in this country, a classic academic elite between the partners of government and universities in terms of doing a certain kind of research.
We set up the National Research Council on that basis, but with the idea that our own government research would be fed into private industry, which would provide Canada with a great industrial base. Well, it did not happen. Goodness knows why. It is probably more because of human factors than any other reason. In fact, we should recognize that fact at this point and realize that we have to take another approach.
In addition, there seems to be an equally strong reaction on the part of private industry in that it does not want to be associated with government and universities. Private industry has developed, particularly with the influx of foreign-owned companies, a branch plant economy. It has developed a great deal of its own research facilities, perhaps not as much as we would like to see. In many cases it prefers to go its own way and not get involved in the trouble of being associated with government regulations, academic fickleness, and all the rest. Government has tried to help industry in many ways in recent years, with limited success, in terms of tax incentives, package programs such as IRD1A, PAIT, PEP, and the rest of the so-called "alphabet soup" programs which in many cases are too inflexible to be useful to industry.
The recent "make or buy" policy means that more government research is farmed out on contract to private companies. However, this does not really expand our research in this country. It certainly does not expand our industrial thrust, because we are really still doing government research, only we have somebody else doing it. So it is a case of shifting work and not expanding our efforts.
[DOT] (M30)
The recent budget attempted to do more. It is a step in the right direction but apparently there is a long way to go. It attempted to do more to help research, particularly in the private sector, through investment tax credits of 5 per cent here in central Canada and higher rates in other regions where, perhaps, it is hoped to attract the companies and research units. This covers both operating and capital expenses in research for the first time in my memory, and it remains to be seen whether this works.
As I said before, we have the problem of being a branch plant economy. A great deal of the research work traditionally
April 22, 1977

has been done in the parent companies, particularly in the United States and Europe, rather than in Canada and it is a problem which still has to be solved. I do not think the position has been particularly helped by some of the things we have done in government, for example, some of the provisions we have made in patent laws have very seriously inhibited research in the Canadian pharmaceutical industry. This is a subject which will certainly come up again in the near future. The idea was all right. It lowered prices to the consumer and presented a good argument on that side, but it certainly did little to stimulate the research industry in this country.
Before 1 conclude, Mr. Speaker, I should like briefly to mention Canadian patents and development-the transfer of responsibility for Canadian Patents and Development Limited from the National Research Council to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. This is a very interesting move and, hopefully, it will have practical results in getting government research work into the hands of industry where it can be used in an effective commercial way for the good of individual Canadian companies as well as for the good of the Canadian economy.
Those are my specific remarks. In conclusion, I should like to say I believe the bill before us is an excellent step in the evolvement of science policy, though a subtle one. I might dwell here on what might appear to be administrative changes-a clean-up bill. This is because I believe these changes have far greater implications for the whole thrust of science policy in Canada than their simple technical nature would suggest. With greater co-ordination of the various councils' granting functions and the sharper definition of the agencies' duties, I think there is great potential for improved efficiency and rationalization of all our resources.
I would like to emphasize once again that this bill only places the potential for progress within our grasp. It is still a very heavy responsibility to take advantage of it and to combine these innovations with a real desire to promote co-ordination and efficiency throughout the whole bureaucratic structure through which they must pass and in which they so often bog down. 1 believe the bill, if it passes, will prove to be a very important catalyst to vigorous activity in all areas of research in Canada and, hopefully, to a healthier use of science and technology by Canadian society as a whole.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook) permit a question? The hon. member referred in his remarks to a CBC interview with respect to the eating habits and the weights of various members of parliament. I confess I was a bit taken aback at the suggestion he made. I do not recall being interviewed with respect to that matter. Accordingly, my question to the hon. member is this: Would he not agree that had my weight been taken into consideration, the average for the NDP would have been a lot lower?


Frank A. Philbrook: I would agree that if the hon. member had been interviewed by the CBC, we would have had the model for an ideal physical Canadian. However, those were only
Scientific Activities of Government average figures. I was interviewed, too, but my figures were not recorded. I thought that was a darned shame, because it would have served as an oustanding example for all Canadians.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to say a few words about Bill C-26 which has been before the House for a while. We know that not all of the organizations which are being restructured by the bill are in favour of it. Certainly the Canada Council is not. It is no secret that the council is unanimously opposed to the division of its functions, and because such bodies have reservations about the bill we should ask what some of its advantages are. I regret the minister is not here this afternoon, and I trust that in his summation he will address himself to this aspect of the debate.
I should like to use a specific example through which the hon. gentleman might be able to clear up some of the doubt in my mind, as well as in the minds of many British Columbians, regarding the powers the various bodies will have once the reorganization is completed. The question has been raised with the minister, the National Research Council, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Premier of British Columbia, and by the Astrophysical Observatory Committee, a group interested in preserving the function of the existing Dominion Radio-Astrophysical Observatory at White Lake, near Penticton, B.C.
The concern those people feel for this important scientific installation is based on the past performance of the government because they know, as many representatives in this House know, that the Queen Elizabeth Optical Observatory which was to have been built at Mount Kobau in the southern Okanagan, and which was under way at the time of the great Trudeaumania sweep of 1968, was cancelled by the government almost immediately after that victory. Of course, the cancellation of that project had a two-edged pain to it, because there was concern not only among the scientific fraternity but among Canadians who knew that it had been a centennial gift in the name of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth and that the cancellation of it, even on scientific grounds, was inconceivable to many British Columbians.
At a time when one sees, again, a replay of the campaign of 1968 being conducted across the west, this bill presents an opportunity to raise questions about an installation which should have been in place, and would have been in place, serving a role in Canada had there not been a lack of concern for the kind of constitutional monarchy that we are and also for the role of scientific installations in the province of British Columbia.
Therefore, one approaches Bill C-26 with a certain amount of skepticism. I would be interested in knowing, and I am sure the Astrophysical Observatory Committee would be very interested in knowing just which of the bodies that are to be set up by this bill will be responsible for the fate of the Dominion Radio-Astrophysical Observatory. It is amazing that one can still refer to a federal government installation using the adjective "dominion", but the government may get around to

April 22, 1977
Pension Act
changing that, too. Will it be the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council? Will it be the Science Council of Canada? Or will it still be the National Research Council?
In the past the committee has appealed to the National Research Council and had from them the reply that, given their financial situation, they cannot see their way to spending money to protect the installation so as to guarantee that its functions will not be interfered with in the future. On reading that correspondence, one wonders how enthusiastically the letters were written. If the government had not starved the National Research Council, as it has over the last few years, if the government had not kept a tighter rein on the council's budget than on some other budgets, the NRC might have been able to take more firm and definite action to reduce electrical interference.
I should like to ask the minister a question which I trust will be referred to him. It is this: Should the bill pass, where would the committee place its concern? To whom should it appeal next? I know letters have been written to the minister on this question; indeed I wrote to him myself on April 14, so he is aware of the situation. I do not know whether he is awaiting passage of Bill C-26; but certainly I, the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker), and the committee itself would be interested in the minister's response and how he feels about the question.
We would like to know whether reorganizing all these councils for the sciences, humanities and the arts will remove the councils further from political interference, or whether they will suffer the same fate as the CRTC, the CBC and a variety of other councils and agencies. We are wondering whether this is not part and parcel of a series of changes enabling the government to interfere in these jurisdictions far more directly. We are well aware of the orders that were given to the CRTC, about which I am sure many Canadians are concerned.
The hon. member who preceded me so eloquently described this bill as "subtle". From Liberal governments that have been in power since 1968 we have come to learn about the subtlety of government and its bills. I hope that when the minister replies and winds up the debate he will reassure us that he will give the observatory committee his thoughts regarding their appeal and, given the passage of this bill, that he will have some advice for them.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Small Businesses)), for Mr. MacDonald (Cardigan), moved that Bill C-ll, to amend the Pension Act, as reported (without amend-

ment) from the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Marchand (for Mr. MacDonald (Cardigan)) moved: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that we agreed to the principle of the bill on second reading, I am glad to say we still have no quarrel with the passage of the bill which, as we indicated before, will provide for a deputy chairman of the Pension Review Board in order to allow for double sittings and, hopefully, increase the adjudication process by adding two ad hoc members. We trust this will clear up the backlog of applications which have been waiting for too long. I do not intend to speak long on this bill; I wish merely to raise a couple of points. I should like to review from the report "Veterans Canada" the function of the Pension Review Board, which at page 32 is described as follows:
The board has final authority to determine any questions of law or fact as to whether a person is entitled to an award under the Pension Act and the amount of any such award. The function of the board is purely judicial as the administration of the Pension Act is the responsibility of the Canadian Pension Commission. The decision of the board is final and binding for all purposes of the act. It is also authorized to entertain any request for an interpretation of the Pension Act made by the commission, the chief pensions advocate or any veterans organization incorporated by or under any act of the parliament of Canada.
Another section of the report reads as follows:
The board holds of paramount importance its responsibility to consider all requests for the interpretation of any provisions of the Pension Act. The question of interpretation is made the subject of hearing before all members of the board when the commission, the bureau of pensions advocates, and all veterans' organizations are invited to appear. The subject matter is fully aired at the hearing before the issue is determined by the board.
This is pretty straightforward, Mr. Speaker, but I think it is long past the time when consideration should be given to, and some flexibility shown in, the adjudication of pensions. Since many veterans are getting older and are unable to get the evidence to back up their claim that they were injured during the war, it has now come to the point where they are being forsaken. This brings up the question of benefit of the doubt, a matter which is not given the consideration that it merits.
I should like to put before the House a case that was brought to my attention of a lady whose husband died having served in the First World War for a year between 1914 and 1917. That is not disputed. The case came to my attention because this poor veteran died in 1974, and his widow, who cannot manage financially, is looking for a widow's pension. We went through the various stages and ended up with some compassionate award that might be granted to her because of the fact the veteran was not treated properly, in my opinion, or his case was not adjudicated properly.
April 22, 1977

Going back to the stated case, which is another reason why there is such a backlog of pensions, the many hundreds of pages of a stated case must be prepared in duplicate or in triplicate. Yet we cannot seem to find that humane humanist to adjudicate a case with the veteran in mind and the conditions. In 1914 this veteran was 18'/2 years old. He lost his hearing on May 21, 1915, and his sight and speech, as a result of shellfire shock. He recovered his sight almost at once, and he recovered his speech after three days. He still suffered from weakness and many effects that certainly support the fact that he was injured and the fact that he suffered continuously until his death in 1974.
He was in hospital with a 25 per cent disability. It was generally acknowledged that he was gassed; a trench fell in on him, and every type of thing happened that justified a request for a pension. It ended up with a decision of the then board, or commission which granted him a gratuity of $25, as provided for in an approved minute of Privy Council of June 3, 1916. He suffered all along. There are doctors' certificates to the fact that he suffered many years since 1916.
We are at the stage now where on Monday morning the widow will appear before the Pension Review Board. I was asked to appear on her behalf. I cannot go because this bill will be before us. I am trying to impress on the House and the minister that this is the type of case which is hanging around and costing the taxpayers thousands of dollars. If we cost it out, the process from the application to the appeal until the adjudication-in most cases they are turned down-we will find we would be better off and would be serving the veterans in a more humane way if they were granted a pension before they die feeling that Canada has forsaken them after the service they gave.
This is one of the things that should be considered. We must have a review of the legislation. This is why I asked for a review of all phases of the Veterans Act back in March of this year. I hope the minister, who is always saying he is considering everything, will review cases like this. There are hundreds of cases like this where we could repay veterans and fulfil the commitments made to them many years ago.
Evidently all the veterans' organizations agree with this. Evidently everybody but the minister agrees with it. In the managerial advisory boards we have it is just a matter of procrastination. First World War veterans are now over 80 years old, and Second World War veterans are over 60 years old. We still do not have finality to the treatment of veterans, even with all the studies that have been made over the years.
We made a serious error when we passed Bill C-92 respecting the prisoners of war compensation act. I mention the fact that First World War veterans were not included. I mention the fact that there are only 200 of them left. I mention the fact that it would only cost $200,000, and this would gradually phase out over the next few years. We forgot another important group-the escapees and the evaders-who certainly suffered; in a lot of cases more than those who were incarcerated.
Pension Act
A very strong letter from the Royal Air Force Escapee Society points out the many inequities which exist. It also points out some of the points the officials made in the Department of Veterans Affairs. For example, the deputy minister indicated that the new legislation would follow studies made by Dr. J. Douglas Hermann, of the former European POWs, as a result of the obvious inequities in the pensions for Hong Kong veterans. As for world war POWs, escapees and evaders, the deputy minister said:
I don't feel there is necessarily any justification for additional benefits. No studies have been carried out on these people and there are no future benefits planned for them.
If no studies were carried out, why were they not carried out? The association gives examples of the suffering that some of these escapees had. They did everything in their power to help fight the enemy even when in danger. There were threats by the Luftwaffe and the German army. Fifty of the Commonwealth flyers who took part in the "great escape" from Stalag Luft-111, Germany, were murdered by the Gestapo. They were always under the threat of being murdered. They did everything possible to evade. They suffered just as much in some cases as any veteran who was incarcerated. At this late date, I ask that some humane consideration be given to them. I hope the minister will consider this request, if he takes the time to read my speech.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Hear, hear!


Jack Marshall: I do not say that with any unkindness, because the minister is fighting a battle in the cabinet trying to get this sort of recognition for legislation. It is time we had this review in order to clean up the act, and I have no hesitation in supporting Bill C-l 1 which is now before us.
One thing the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) will repeat-and it has to be repeated as much as possible-is the discrimination against widows in this age of the status of women and the equality of males and females. Widows of veterans whose pension was less than 48 per cent can receive a substantial pension of $417.47, yet if the husband died receiving a pension of 1 per cent less than 48 per cent, they are left out in the cold and have to revert to welfare. There is no way in which anybody can reconcile this inequity or rationalize it and say it is fair, in our prosperous and wealthy Canadian society.
I do not want to hold up the bill. I want to get the Pension Review Board built up with strength so that it can adjudicate cases more quickly and efficiently, and clean up the backlog of some 3,000 cases which still remain. Hopefully, consideration will be given, when it is dealing with these cases, to not wasting time-weeks, months and, indeed, years-preparing cases when the facts are there. The fact that these veterans sacrificed their lives should be considered with a much more humanist Canadian spirit.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) who has just spoken, I want to express our pleasure at having an opportunity to support Bill C-11, which

April 22, 1977
Pension Act
is now at third reading. Its purpose is to strengthen the Pension Review Board both by providing for a deputy chairman and by providing for additional members so that that board can more expeditiously do the work that is given to it. The Pension Review Board, as hon. members are aware, is a body completely separate from the Canadian Pension Commission to which applications for pensions which have been denied by that commission can be referred for further review. It is significant that the Pension Review Board does alter the decision made by the Canadian Pension Commission in respect of between 30 per cent and 35 per cent of the cases that are sent up to the Pension Review Board. In the view of some of us this makes it obvious that it was a good decision we made a number of years ago following study of the report of the Woods commission. I refer to the decision to establish a pension review board. We are pleased to indicate our support for this bill, as we did at second reading and in the standing committee, and I hope that within not many minutes the bill will have been passed by this House.
Like the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe, however, I feel that when the subject of veterans affairs comes up it ought to be said strongly, and with as much of a note of appeal to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald), and to the government as we can muster, that there are matters of unfinished business that still require attention.
I have no hesitation in saying that for a few years, from about 1970 to 1974, we made quite a few improvements in veterans legislation but then things seemed to taper off. The only improvement that we have had in this majority parliament, compared with some significant improvements that were won during the minority parliament, is the passing of the bill to provide prisoners of war compensation for those who were prisoners of war in Europe and improvements in the prisoners of war compensation for those who were prisoners of war in Hong Kong. That was good legislation, but the rate of improvement in veterans legislation has declined greatly since the early years of this decade.
Some people might say everything has been fixed up. It is not so, Mr. Speaker. There are some items of unfinished business that some of us think are very serious. There is an understandable tendency on the part of veterans to feel that, because we are getting more and more decades away from the wars in which they took part, they are being forgotten.
It is in more than just a formal sense that I rise for these few minutes, as my colleague from Newfoundland has done, to appeal to the Minister of Veterans Affairs to put even more fight into his efforts on behalf of the veterans. If I wanted to disagree slightly with my colleague-and it is not often that I do, as we often say the same thing-I would question one thing he said a moment ago. He said that everybody but the Minister of Veterans Affairs agreed with the particular appeal he was making. I will go further. I will say the Minister of Veterans Affairs also agrees, but he is in trouble with some of those in the cabinet, such as the Minister of Finance (Mr. 
Macdonald), the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras), the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who seem to know nothing but restraint.
We are talking about World War I veterans who are over 80 years of age. We are talking about widows in the same bracket. We are talking about World War II veterans who are in their sixties and are having a tough time. To tell them that restraint is the order of the day and ask them to wait 10 or 20 years until things improve is not a proper response on the part of parliament or the government.
I plead for attention to the items of unfinished business, something like the attention we were getting when we were studying the Woods report and during the months in which the government was in a minority position. The previous speaker referred to some of those items, and he said I would repeat them. He is perfectly right.
I have already mentioned the bill of last year regarding the prisoners of war pension. It is a shame it took so many years to win that bill, but it was good that we won it. Mr. Speaker, it is still wrong that we did not include in the bill, or that the government did not include in the bill, as the committee recommended, prisoners of war from World War I. There are only 200 of them still alive, so the cost would be minuscule compared with the way money is thrown around in this place. It is not good enough to say that can be considered after the period of restraint is over. When the period of restraint is over, things will be over for them as well. The same goes for the escapers and evaders in World War II; they should have been included in the bill passed last year. Incidentally, that was the recommendation both of Dr. Hermann, who brought in the report, and of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
The minister keeps indicating his sympathy with respect to our position on those matters, and I believe him. I think the trouble is not in his heart or soul; his trouble is with those so-and-so's he has to get along with in cabinet. I plead for action on those two issues with respect to the bill we passed last year.
Another issue that we raise fairly often which I think still requires attention is the gap that has developed between the rate of a 100 per cent disability pension and the composite figure in the public service that was accepted as a norm a few years ago. At that time the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs recommended that, a composite figure for the public service having been established as a norm for 100 per cent disability pension, that should continue to be the norm. As the composite rate in the public service went up, so the rate of the 100 per cent disability should go up, indeed, by the same number of dollars. But the government pegged it to the rise in the consumer price index. The result is that now there is a gap of more than $500 per year between the rate of the 100 per cent disability pension and the composite rate in the five groups in the public service that were taken for that purpose. That is a piece of unfinished business that ought to be dealt with by this parliament, which means that the Minister of Veterans Affairs should be persuaded to get cabinet to let him bring in a bill amending that piece of legislation.
April 22, 1977


Jack Marshall: The new member of cabinet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think there were too many references to that new member of cabinet yesterday.
I do not see any point in adding to that today. I cannot say that I count on him very much in this area.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Another matter that is of serious concern, and is still a shortcoming of which parliament cannot be proud, is the way we cut off the widows of veterans from any pension as of right if the veteran's pension was less than 48 per cent. We have fought about this so often and recited the story so often that I am sure every one must know how it works. If a veteran is on a disability pension of 48 per cent or more and dies, his widow gets, as a right, without any question, the full widow's pension, which is 75 per cent of a 100 per cent disability pension. If the veteran's pension was below 48 per cent-if it was 47 per cent, 46 per cent or 45 per cent-she gets nothing.
There are many cases where there are also other benefits that the veteran was getting but which die with him. She can go on various forms of welfare. She can get the welfare program of the department which is an allowance for widows under the War Veterans Allowance Act. It is a fact of life however, that persons, civilians or veterans, veterans or widows, feel a lot different about something that comes as a matter of right and something to which there is the stigma of welfare or a means test attached.
We have argued, and we have had excellent recommendations along those lines, that at the very least there should be pro rata pensions for widows in those cases. If the veteran's pension was less than 48 per cent, the widow should get at least a proportion of the pension. This has been recommended by such outstanding persons as Mr. Justice Mervyn Woods who brought in the Woods report a few years ago which recommended action, by Dr. J. D. Hermann in his report on prisoners of war, and by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs several times. I believe the Minister of Veterans Affairs also thinks it should be done, and I am pretty well satisfied that the bureaucrats in his department-there are pretty good bureaucrats in that department-want this to be done. Where is the block? Where is the trouble? It is in the cabinet. It is the President of the Treasury Board, it is the Minister of Finance, it is the Prime Minister himself, I suspect, who say "No, we cannot put any more money into veterans affairs; we have done enough."
Sir, these are pressing problems that should be met and resolved. 1 am taking this opportunity this afternoon, not just in a formal way, not just because veterans affairs are before us, but to plead with the minister that he deal with these matters at an early date. I offer no complaint at his absence. He has one of the better attendance records in the House of any member of cabinet. He is here night after night, and I am sure his absence this afternoon is for a very good reason. I also
Pension Act
know he will read this debate, and I hope he will pay close attention to it.
I press also-and this is in line with something the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe just said-that we do some more thinking about the position of older veterans. Once veterans are past the age of 60, once they are in their seventies or eighties, are we not spending an awful lot of money needlessly on the red tape and investigation of their means, health, and all the rest of it? Surely a time comes when instead of denying veterans their rights because they cannot meet certain tests, or instead of giving them a war veterans allowance with a means test attached, it is right for these veterans and their widows that we establish a guaranteed income. As the previous speaker said, it would save a lot of costs of one kind or another, and certainly it would be more fair.
I welcome this opportunity and I say my word of thanks to Your Honour. As a matter of fact if you had taken the trouble to read the bill-and maybe you did-you would wonder how the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe and I could drag in the whole gamut of veterans affairs under a little bill to increase the size of the Pension Review Board. But you are very decent and I am glad you allowed us to do it. I hope the minister will read the speeches that have been made this afternoon and will realize it is not good enough to trade on the improvements that were made for veterans over a number of years.
We have not done enough lately. We should be doing something now, and I hope that attention will be given to the important issues we have placed on the record this afternoon.


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to speak on this bill, but it is not very often that anything is presented in the House in the form of a bill on veterans affairs which would give us an opportunity to speak on this subject. Although this bill is just a housekeeping bill and something that the cabinet could have done by order in council without bringing in legislation before the House, I think also there are too many areas in which the cabinet does act on its own, such as restrictions on the amounts of money that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) can use for veterans. I think it is a good thing that at least we have a bill such as this which gives us the opportunity to speak on matters concerning veterans.
I apologize to be speaking only on third reading of the bill, but I could not speak on the previous stages of the bill. I cannot be as charitable regarding this bill as was the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and I hope that this legislation will not mean there will be more of the same from the Pension Review Board. What the bill does is to increase the length of service of the members of the board from five to ten years. It gives them a chance to bring in some ad hoc members or to increase their staff when they deem it necessary, and it allows them to have a vice chairman, and so on. But if it means more of the same, then I am not really too much in favour of this bill because, as the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) said, what is

April 22, 1977
Pension Act
necessary is to clean up the backlog and deal with those veterans who have made their plea for pensions. There are some 3,000 of them, and we need to do something for them.
I am also somewhat concerned about some of the findings of the Pension Review Board, having had an opportunity to appear before them in the case of a veteran and having had an opportunity to review what happened in his case over the years in his attempts to obtain some recognition of his need for a pension. It appears to me that the Pension Review Board has acted to protect in particular the interests of the doctors in the armed forces, especially in the case of my constituent who is a very conscientious man. He has served in the armed forces for a long period of time, starting early in the second world war. Actually he joined up under age. On being found out, he was discharged, but then immediately upon coming of age he joined up again. He served in the armed forces through the latter part of the second world war and in peace time. He has a very good service record, so he cannot be faulted for that.
During his service he was at times sick and in distress, and it appears to me that quite often he was given shocking treatment. I would even accuse the armed forces of having diagnosed this case improperly. At one time he was posted to a restricted area of service improperly because people with medical problems were not supposed to go there. Whilst there he could not receive the type of treatment he needed, nor was his illness correctly diagnosed. Finally, after years of service and after he left the armed forces, he received the proper treatment for his ailment. He had regional ileitis, and it was properly treated, but only after years and years of treatment in the armed forces.
The Review Board always says new evidence has to be brought in, but I do not think it is new evidence; it is a new look, because in my opinion the board does not take into consideration the reports of civilian doctors. In my opinion this veteran was given shocking treatment in the armed services, and this is not really being given proper consideration. Factually erroneous medical reports are continually being cited to justify denying him a pension.
I think this Chamber is the highest court in the land, much higher than the review board, and I feel it is my duty to raise this matter because of the treatment the review board has given this person. The board is using old and outdated texts on regional ileitis. The most recent research has shown that this disease begins in early teenage years and progresses more rapidly in later years. It also has shown that it can be aggravated by the very type of treatment this veteran received during his time in the armed forces. I do not believe these areas are being examined.
As I said before, all the records of this individual show that he was a very good worker, that he was very conscientious, and that he made every effort to avoid sick leave.
Even though this bill is a housekeeping bill, I cannot get really too excited about supporting it unless we are going to get something better from the review board. If it is just going

to be the maintenance of the status quo, if we are just going to give the review board this and that, not bring the backlog down, not really take a good objective look at cases like this, and if we just refer to one authoritative report which was put in by an armed forces doctor, I really cannot get too excited about supporting the bill.
As I said before, there are many things happening in the Department of Veterans Affairs. I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that these things happen because of internal decisions of the cabinet. I certainly hope that in the interests of veterans the Minister of Veterans Affairs is being supported by the cabinet. I hope the cabinet realizes that perhaps veterans have not had the opportunity to file for pensions or that perhaps they have been too proud. I hope also that the cabinet realizes that some ailments are not known at the time veterans leave the armed forces and that veterans should be given another opportunity to make application. It is unfortunate when the minister has to say to the Pension Review Board that sufficient funds for veterans are not available.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to say these few words, and I hope that in future veterans will get a much better deal from the Pension Review Board.


Mr. S. Victor Railton (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I really do not want to take very long. Some cruel things have been said about the Pension Review Board which it does not deserve. Some cruel things have been said about the administration of the Pension Act and about the minister and the cabinet. Those remarks were completely uncalled for and unnecessary.
I have treated regional ilietis many times and conducted some operations. It is not a pensionable disability, and that is all I can say.
When it comes to the other case which was talked about at great length, I think all of this has to be looked into very carefully. Nobody is trying to keep veterans from what they deserve and from what is really coming to them. Pension decisions are a clear interpretation of the act, if it is looked at properly. If veterans cannot get enough out of that, there are other things available, but probably not more than a 25 per cent "pension" disability. We have to remember that.
We are all very much in sympathy with POWs and escapees, and there has been an excellent act for POWs. Perhaps the escapees should have been included. I would not say they should not be, but in this country we have looked after our veterans, POWs and escapees, with pensions, services, and welfare better than any other country in the world respecting war injuries.
That is not saying we are doing enough for them, but there should not be too much criticism. I do not think the opposition parties can say they were responsible for getting some of these benefits. After all, they were provided by this government, and there was a unanimous committee report. So let us not have people setting themselves up as the friends of veterans any more than the government. I think we over here have made
April 22, 1977

sure that veterans receive their rights and privileges as much as possible. This is what we intend to do.
Widows' pensions are still being looked into. When the minister says he is still looking into this, that he is considering it, and that the cabinet is considering it, I think that is so; and 1 think the matter of a guaranteed annual income is also still being looked into. I do not think we should really get any demerits or that the opposition parties should get "brownie points" for saying what they do in parliament.
As far as I know, the minister and the department are administering the Pension Act, the Canada Pension Commission and all veterans services extremely well. If things happen which are regrettable or which cannot be dealt with because of the regulations of the act, that is not the fault of the minister; it is the fault of the act itself. If problems arise, hon. members should suggest changes to the act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


FARM IMPROVEMENT LOANS ACT
Len Marchand: that Bill C-48, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Small Businesses Loans Act and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise, to move second reading of Bill C-48, which proposes certain changes to the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, and the Small Businesses Loans Act. As Minister of State for Small Business, I have, of course, a very special interest in the Small Businesses Loans Act. I think it appropriate, however, that I should also speak to the changes recommended in the acts for farmers and Fishermen. The three acts have very similar objectives and provisions and they have always been regarded as companion programs.
These programs have been in existence for many years, and I expect that most hon. members will be quite familiar with them. It will be recalled that the purpose of the legislation is to facilitate the availability of intermediate term credit to farmers, fishermen, and small businessmen. Under the legislation the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) is authorized to guarantee loans made by chartered banks and other designated lenders for a wide range of capital improvement purposes, subject to certain conditions being met.
This legislation will expire on June 30 of this year unless extended by parliament, and one of the purposes of Bill C-48 is to seek a continuation of it for another three years. Other changes are also being recommended with a view to keeping the programs abreast of economic trends and developments. However, before discussing provisions of the bill in detail it
Improvement Loans
might be helpful if I said a few words about these programs in more general terms.
An important feature of all three is that loans can be made without prior approval of the minister. This arrangement greatly facilitates the speed with which loan applications can be processed, and is intended to ensure that the borrower's needs are dealt with efficiently and expeditiously.
During my consultations with members of the small business community all over the country, one of the most frequently heard complaints has been that when business has to deal with government, the turn-around time on a decision is too long for a small operator's needs. Under this program he can get the Financing he requires without undue delay.
At the same time a loan must be made in accordance with specified criteria if it is to be eligible for a guarantee. These requirements include the maximum amount of a loan, the purpose of the loan, its maximum term security, the minimum investment by the borrower in the project for which a loan is sought, and the maximum rate of interest which can be charged. Finally, in all cases lenders are expected to use responsible business judgment in assessing applications.
I should like to speak now about some of the features specific to the Small Businesses Loans Act. I propose to deal with this program First because, though not the oldest or the largest of the three, it has been growing the most rapidly and I believe it offers considerable additional scope as an instrument for assisting small businesses.
The Small Businesses Loans Act came into effect in 1961 for a three-year period, and has been extended and amended from time to time since then. In order to qualify for a loan an enterprise must, at present, have an annual gross revenue not exceeding $1 million and be engaged in one of the following forms of business activity: manufacturing, retail or wholesale trade, provision of services, construction, transportation, or communications. Loans purposes include the purchase of fixed or moveable equipment, the purchase, improvement or renovation of premises, and the purchase of land necessary for the operation of a business. The maximum individual loan limit is currently $50,000, and the maximum repayment period is ten years.
From its inception to the end of 1976, over 43,000 loans had been made under this act for a total of about $480 million. Lending volume since 1970 has risen continually from year to year and there was a particularly sharp increase in 1975 to $78 million, which was more than double the 1974 level. On the basis of figures released yesterday by the Department of Finance, 1976 registered a further growth to about $81 million.
As to changes proposed in this program, Bill C-48 recommends an extension for a further three years to June, 1980. An important amendment is also proposed in the individual lending limit, which would be raised from $50,000 to $75,000. The coverage of the small business community would also be enlarged by broadening the eligibility criteria under the act. In future a business would qualify for assistance if its annual

April 22, 1977
Improvement Loans
gross revenue were as high as $1.5 million, an increase of $500,000 from the present limit of $1 million. This would have the effect of making the program more available to the retail sector where a relatively small operation can easily go above $1 million in annual sales.
Finally, the aggregate amount of loans which would be eligible for the guarantee in the proposed three-year lending period would be set at $600 million. There would be only one lending pool applicable to all lenders, instead of, as is presently the case, separate limits for chartered banks and Alberta treasury branches and for other designated lenders such as credit unions and caisses populaires. A single pool would not affect the government's potential exposure and would have the advantage of being a more flexible arrangement.
The figure of $600 million represents a substantial increase over the limit currently in effect, which is $350 million for the three years ending in June, 1977. The increase is necessary in light of the expected increased volume of lending which will result from the changes I have just mentioned, and from the planned adjustment of the rates lenders will be allowed to charge. I will discuss this matter in more detail later in my remarks. At this point 1 would note merely that the present interest rate formula could be changed by regulation under the powers in the existing statute. No amendment to the legislation would be necessary. I should also note it would be the intention to apply a new formula to all three programs, not just to the program under the Small Businesses Loans Act.
The oldest of the three programs is the Farm Improvement Loans Act, which was established in 1944. Eligible loan purposes include the purchase of farm implements, buildings, equipment or livestock, the purchase of additional land, and the repair or improvement of assets used in farming enterprises. As in the case of the Small Businesses Loans Act, the maximum individual loan limit is currently $50,000. The maximum repayment period is also ten years, except in the case of land purchases, where it is 15 years.
The Farm Improvement Loans Act has played an important role in assisting the development of Canadian agriculture, as is attested to by the lending activity it has helped to generate. From its inception to the end of 1976, over 1,750,000 loans were made under the act, totalling about $3.5 billion. Loans in 1976, on the basis of figures released yesterday, were in the order of $160 million.
The proposed changes in the Farm Improvement Loans Act are similar to those recommended for the Small Businesses Loans Act. The program will be extended for three years to June 30, 1980, and the individual lending limit would be increased from $50,000 to $75,000. The aggregate lending limit for the proposed new period would be set at $1.55 billion, somewhat higher than the limit for the current three-year period of $1.4 billion. As in the case of the Small Businesses Loans Act, separate limits for banks and for other designated lenders would be replaced by a single pool applicable to all lenders.
The Fisheries Improvement Loans Act was introduced in 1955 and has since been amended as necessary. The purpose

for which loans can be made now includes the purchase, construction, or repair of fishing vessels and fishing equipment, and the development of shore installations such as piers, wharves and boat houses, including equipment which is used with them. The maximum individual loan limit is $50,000 and the maximum repayment period is ten years.
Lending under this program reached a record level of $12 million in the loan year 1975-76. On the basis of figures released yesterday, which record lending activity in the nine months to January 1, the expected volume in the current loan year, though down somewhat, will still be of the order of $10.5 million.
As in the case of the amendments proposed to programs for farmers and small business people, the lending period under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act would be extended for a further three years and the individual lending limit increased to $75,000. The limit on loans subject to guarantee in the new three-year period would be $80 million. As for the other two programs, there would be only one lending pool, instead of two.
These proposed changes respond to representations received during a recently completed review of the legislation. The broad consensus of views received was that the acts can continue to play a useful role in helping to ensure the availability of intermediate term credit and that they should be extended and updated. There was, however, one major concern expressed. This concern is that the interest rates which lenders are permitted to charge on loans have not always been high enough to ensure a flow of credit fully responsive to demand. It has been a consistent theme when I have listened to representations from small business people wherever I have gone in Canada. They have told me "Our problem is not with interest rates. We know we are in a different position when looking for financing than are the banks' bigger customers, the large firms". "What we need," these business people have told me, "is for the money to be available to us in the first place. If Financing is available, interest rates are a secondary consideration."
Under authority provided in the legislation, rates of interest for these programs are set by order in council in accordance with a formula based on government bond yields. While the formula worked quite satisfactorily for some time following its introduction in 1968, this has been less true in recent years, and there have been occasions when it was well below chartered bank prime. As hon. members are aware, the prim? rate is the lowest rate at which banks are prepared to make funds available to their most creditworthy customers.
In circumstances where the prime rate and the formula rate have diverged rather widely, there has understandably been some reluctance on the part of lenders to participate as fully in the programs as would be desirable. The consensus of views received is that the rate in future should be based on back prime with some margin added to reflect administrative costs.
April 22, 1977

I should say that this particular formula is used by the provinces in their direct lending programs.
In the light of these representations the government has been giving careful consideration to a revision of the formula for the three acts with a view to working out an alternative arrangement which would increase the programs' utilization and effectiveness, while still ensuring that costs to the borrowers are not excessive. It is expected that an examination of the interest rate question will be concluded with lenders within the near future. As I mentioned earlier, any new formula would be put into effect by changing the regulations for the programs.
The suggested increase in the individual lending limit from $50,000 to $75,000, together with the proposed modification of eligibility criteria should significantly enlarge the scope, flexibility, and effectiveness of these programs. The recommended aggregate lending limits reflect the expected impact of these changes, as well as the expectation of much higher lending activity which should flow from a revision of the interest rate arrangements. The changes proposed will, I believe, ensure that these programs will make an enhanced contribution toward meeting the capital requirements of small business, farmers and fishermen.
The Small Businesses Loans Act amendments also reflect closely the requirements of small business people as I have heard them in meetings with small entrepreneurs from St. John's to Victoria. I am sure that they will result in a brighter financial picture for many small business operators all over the country.
I recommend this bill to the House. I hope we can get it into committee as soon as possible where there will be more far-reaching discussion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the initiative of the minister responsible for small business in Bill C-48 to make some amendments to the Small Businesses Loans Act to help small businessmen in Canada. They certainly need assistance in the kind of economy we are facing today.
I commend the minister for the initiatives of raising the loan limit from $50,000 to $75,000 and the eligibility requirement from an annual gross revenue of $1 million to $1,500,000. This takes into account the realities of inflation today and the problems that small businessmen are having in gaining working capital.
Despite these initiatives there are still some fundamental problems facing small businessmen to which the government has not addressed itself in a meaningful way. I think, for example, of what is happening to the power of independent small businessmen in our economy as we move more and more toward domination of the major market sectors by large corporations that are in a monopoly or oligopoly position.
1 think, for example, of the 1971 census which showed out of
153,000	non-financial corporations in Canada, only a mere 626 of these accounted for 63 per cent of all total business
Improvement Loans
assets, 58 per cent of total profits, and paid only 46 per cent of corporate income taxes. This shows that our economy is being dominated by a few relatively large business corporations. The principle of competition is seriously undermined as these large companies are able to corner the market in terms of supplies they sell to small businesses and also in terms of products sold to consumers.
These large corporations have an unfair competitive advantage over the small businessman. When we look at the financing in the various budgets brought forward by this government, we have to conclude that tax measures favour the large business over the small business. Indeed the kinds of corporate tax concessions provided since the government of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has been in office have amounted to some $6 billion, but only a fraction of that has gone to small business.
Small business is a tremendously important sector of our economy, employing about 60 per cent of Canadian workers. When we look at the problems we are facing today we see only token gestures on the part of the government in helping out small businessmen. We find, for example, that small businessmen, despite the kind of legislation we have before us, still have great difficulty in obtaining credit. Banks are more often willing to make loans to larger business institutions or foreign businesses than they are to small independent Canadian concerns. Even though the minister has raised the limit of the loan the government will guarantee, he has really not addressed himself to encouraging the banks to make these loans readily available.
The small businessmen I talk to invariably complain about the difficulty of even getting bank managers interested in providing loans to them under the act. In most cases the private banks are not enthusiastic about making loans to small businessmen under this legislation, and it seems to me that unless we go further by introducing, for example, an amendment to the banking legislation making it mandatory for the banks to lend a certain percentage of their loan funds to small business under the provisions of the Small Businesses Loans Act, or similar provisions, businessmen will still be running into the problem of finding banks reluctant to give them loans. As 1 say, the banks are much more interested in making loans to large corporations which will borrow larger sums from which the return in the form of interest will be higher.
The other difficulty lies with the interest rate itself. Small businessmen are always strapped for working capital. Take the case of a merchant engaged in the clothing business, for example, who needs a cash flow of between $50,000 and $100,000 to purchase his stock for the season. The burden placed on him when he has to borrow money at current interest rates ranging anywhere from 10 to 12 per cent or even higher is a tremendous one, yet somehow the bank loan must be repaid out of the earnings he makes through sales. It would be far more significant if the Minister of State (Small Business) (Mr. Marchand) could convince the government to bring
80012 33

April 22, 1977
West Indies
in legislation ensuring a preferential loan rate to small business-not just a voluntary rate on the part of the banks but a mandatory one. This would mean a great deal more than merely raising the loan ceiling.
I notice that, according to a recent survey by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the most significant problems facing small businessmen today are financing and interest rates. It would be far more beneficial if the government were to do something about bringing down high interest rates as they affect small business, in addition to obliging the banks to be more responsive when lending money out to small business.
Another complaint of small businesses is the amount of regulation and red tape they face in filling out forms for Statistics Canada and other government agencies. I ask the minister responsible for small business to move expeditiously to reduce the number of forms small businesses are obliged to fill out. After all, these firms do not usually have a large staff of accountants and others who can do this work. Often it is the businessman himself who must spend long and weary hours filling out the forms which are demanded. A reduction can be made in the type of information which is sought. Too often there is duplication, and too much detail is demanded.
In the long run, though, it seems to me that to create a healthy environment for small business we must challenge the growing monopoly power of a few of the larger businesses in Canada which will corner the market and sell goods below cost to force smaller competitors out of business. If we are to maintain a healthy small business community the government must begin seriously to restrict monopolistic practices of this kind. In conclusion, 1 commend the government for the initiative it has shown in raising the lending limits, but I ask the minister and his colleagues to consider seriously bringing in a provision to reduce interest rates applicable to small business and to restrict monopoly practices which are taking place to the detriment of thousands of small businesses, which are really the backbone of our economy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private member's business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions, public bills and private bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Ralph Goodale: In order to expedite the proceedings, Mr. Speaker, may 1 say I believe there is common agreement this afternoon to proceed with item 13 in the name of the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is that agreeable to the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it agreed that the remaining motions shall stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


WEST INDIES
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, November 19, 1976, consideration of the motion of Mr. Macquarrie:
That, in the opinion of this House, a special Joint Commitee of the Senate and the House of Commons be appointed to consider the advisability of taking an initiative in seeking to promote closer relations with the former British possessions in the West Indies, such as the Turks and Caicos Islands, which have not yet attained independence, and further that if the residents of any of these islands so desire it, economic and political union of these islands with the Dominion of Canada be negotiated at an early date at the proper constitutional levels.
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words on the motion moved by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) in regard to establishing a special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons to examine the advisability of taking an initiative concerning British West Indies possessions, and specifically the Turks and Caicos Islands. As with most issues which may, at first glance, appear straightforward in their implications and readily analyzable in terms of cause and effect, the present discussion, upon closer study, reveals complex and interlocking social, political, and economic problems.
Although the proposal that Canada have a small portion of its sovereign territory south of the snow line seems an attractive one in view of our winters, 1 submit that an analysis of the facts will reveal many overriding drawbacks to this seemingly congenial idea.
It should be explained first that there are ten separate non-independent British states in the Commonwealth Caribbean, five of which have "Associated State" status and five of which are Crown Colonies. The Associated States at present have complete internal self-government but rely upon Great Britain for the conduct of defence and foreign relations. The five Crown Colonies are more directly under British administration, and range in population from the British Virgin Islands, which number just over 5,000 persons, to Belize, formerly British Honduras, which has approximately 135,000 people. In most of the Associated States there appears to be a general desire to move to independence soon, an ambition which is very much in keeping with the climate of international opinion as manifested by the recommendations of the United Nations Special Committee on Dependent Territories.
Canadian development assistance is important in the area and has contributed significantly to the development programs
(Mr. Symes.]
April 22, 1977

of the independent islands. It is also a region of the world to which many Canadians are attracted for their vacations, and it is perhaps partly as a result of these experiences that there is such a widespread interest in the welfare of the region. The Canadian "profile" tends to be a high one, particularly in the smaller islands of the Windwards and Leewards, a fact that in itself places upon us the onus to act responsibly and to employ particular discretion in considering actions which might have an upsetting effect in the Caribbean. An action undertaken by Canada without much careful thought as to its consequences could have a profoundly disruptive impact on the small countries of the region. Our commitment to continue assisting the Commonwealth Caribbean-and especially the disadvantaged islands in the region-remains strong. This is surely the proper way to proceed, rather than to inject ourselves physically into the midst of a region which is developing its own institutions.
It might be of interest to hon. members if I were to review briefly the nature of Canadian assistance in the Commonwealth Caribbean since the inception of our program in 1958. In that year the West Indies Federation became the first area outside the Colombo Plan to receive Canadian development assistance. After the dissolution of the Federation, initial grants were continued and expanded on an individual island basis with the main emphasis on education.
From 1966 onwards there was a considerable expansion of the Canadian aid program. It was agreed at the Commonwealth Caribbean-Canada Conference of 1966 that the level of Canadian assistance over the next five years would be $75 million, plus an additional $5 million for the University of the West Indies. Tourism was identified as a key sector which would stimulate self-sustained economic growth in the region, and Canada thus extended her assistance to the development of airports. In addition, water supply projects were undertaken; further investment was made in education; and Canada assisted in the strengthening of capabilities in agriculture, particularly through the agricultural development fund of the Caribbean Development Bank of which Canada was a founding member. In fact total Canadian assistance for the five-year period exceeded earlier undertakings and totalled more than $100 million. Since that time Canadian development assistance in the Commonwealth Caribbean has increased substantially to a five year total of about $150 million.
Future Canadian assistance to the region as a whole is under study but it can be said that the major problems in the area- unemployment and income distribution-will receive particular attention, as will regional approaches to economic co-operation and the development of common services in education and transportation particularly in the Leeward and Windward Islands. Our aid program will also seek to encourage integrated agricultural development and will concentrate on low income territories. Although, however, by comparison with some other islands in the area, their per capita income is somewhat higher, consideration is presently being given to the provision of limited and ad hoc amounts of assistance to the British Virgin Islands, the Turks and Caicos Islands and the Cayman Islands to be used for the purchase of small equip-
West Indies
ment related to their local developmental projects and needs and scholarships for study in Canada. This is a token of Canadian interest although the British have, of course, the primary economic as well as the full constitutional responsibility for these territories.
Canadian co-operation with the Caribbean does not take place only through aid programs. There is also significant co-operation at the business level. I am aware of several instances where Canadian companies, in co-operation with Caribbean businessmen, have established joint ventures whereby there has been a transfer to the Caribbean of know-how and technology, and savings for the Caribbean in terms of hard currency. This is a most fruitful sort of co-operation and is welcomed by the Caribbean governments.
Through the holidays of Canadian tourists in the Caribbean, through the immigration of Caribbean peoples to Canada, through business, academic and governmental contacts, the Canadian and Caribbean peoples have come to know each other very well and we have succeeded, I think, in establishing relationships of equality. Without in any way being complacent, I think it is fair to say that our relationship with the Commonwealth Caribbean is a good one, devoid of the grinding of axes.
A major problem in the small Commonwealth Caribbean countries is the administration of separate local government units, with the civil service necessary to support them. Most of the Associated States are confronted by the problem of recurrent budgetary deficits incurred in the attempt to maintain minimum acceptable levels of government services. Except for Belize, which is a special case, the dependent territories are smaller than the Associated States, and need outside assistance which the British government provides. For this reason, many of these non-independent states have been working to increase the extent of regional co-operation and to rationalize as much as possible the regional infra-structure.
An example of this has been the Caribbean Community and Common Market-CARICOM-which, in addition to the independent Caribbean states, includes all five of the British Associated States together with the independent territories of Montserrat and Belize. Although primarily an economic grouping, committed to the adoption of a common external tariff, the Caribbean Community also makes provision for consultation on subjects such as regional air and sea transportation and the administration of development assistance programs. CARICOM is an organization which is generally supported by Canada. We hope it will serve to broaden the areas of co-operation between the individual states of the region. It would seriously weaken the prospects for greater Caribbean unity if Canada were to appear to entertain seriously the prospect of detaching some of these countries from their Commonwealth Caribbean associations and integrating them into the Canadian system.
Now I ask members to try to envisage the situation which would result if Canada were to accept into Confederation a
80012-33Vi

April 22, 1977
West Indies
given island of the region, say the Turks and Caicos with a population of about 7,000 people. Presumably, through rapid transfers from the Canadian Treasury to the island, the standard of living on that island would rise dramatically, but a large influx of Canadians could impose a very severe strain on the social fabric and culture of these small territories. Within a comparatively short period of time this new piece of Canadian territory would be clearly marked off from its neighbours. Intolerable pressures would then be generated on the governments of nearby islands, by the peoples of those islands clamouring for services of the same high standard as that prevailing in the Canadianized island. Needless to say, the governments could not possibly afford to meet the expectations thus created.
The Caribbean already suffers, to a significant degree, from the unsettling effects of tourism. Hon. members will know that in most of the Caribbean, Canadian tourists are warmly welcomed and treated with consideration and friendliness. However, tourists can sometimes, without so intending, create by their very presence among the peoples of the Caribbean a desire for North American standards of living which the economies of these islands cannot begin to support. How much more difficult the situation would be if there were also an integral, if detached, part of Canada with standards so high that islands in the area could not begin to meet them. How would we rectify the dis-equilibrium which we would have introduced? How would we react if in island after island the pressures on the governments became too great for them to bear? How would we answer the independent states of the region which might argue that Canada would have created for itself a moral obligation to ensure that these independent states were in a position to provide to their own people standards comparable to those which we might have introduced on only one island? How would we justify our action in other parts of the world where wants and needs were perhaps even greater than they are in some areas of the Commonwealth Caribbean?
Actions which may be taken by a country such as Canada on the international scene will not be viewed in isolation from the general world environment. A moment ago 1 discussed the damage which we might do by expanding our territory into the Caribbean scene. But there is still another factor involved, namely, that of the attitudes of the world community toward small territories which have not yet acceded to independence.
It is now well accepted in international practice that small size or lack of resources should not be an impediment to the obtaining of independence by a people. In the Central Pacific lies the Republic of Nauru with a population of about 6,500. Nauru became independent in 1968, three years after the Maidive Islands which have a population of about 100,000 people. It would surely run counter to a major trend in world affairs if we were to try to alleviate the lot of the inhabitants of small islands in the manner which the motion would seek to do. The day of staking claim to non-contiguous territory, even with the consent of the inhabitants, is well and truly over, for good or for ill.

Canada accepts willingly the concept of assisting its friends in less developed countries throughout the world to achieve acceptable standards of social and economic justice. We will continue to pursue this goal with the tools which we have available or which can further be devised. But absorption will not be one of those tools.
Let me say once again that, while I find the motion unacceptable, it must not be taken that we in any way reject the centuries of friendship which we have enjoyed and which we still very much enjoy with the Commonwealth Caribbean. We admire the peoples of the Commonwealth Caribbean for their industry and talent in creating their own institutions, traditions and cultures. We are jealous of the friendship which we enjoy with the region. It is not to deny any of this that we reject the concept of swallowing up any one of the islands of the Caribbean.
In summary, we should seek to intensify our relations with and assistance to the developing countries in the Caribbean. That is in the spirit of equitable new international economic order. Co-operation and not constitutional absorption are the appropriate ways to work toward a more even-handed world economy.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, it is with some degree of pleasure that I rise this afternoon to support my distinguished friend and colleague, the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), a noted author and a noted expert on the Caribbean and the so-called West Indies. It is a privilege because he brings to this Chamber with the introduction of his motion, albeit some months ago when snow was on the ground, an awareness of the responsibility that we as Canadians have.
Those of us from the east coast who are maritimers have an awareness of the responsibility that we have to the people lying some 2,000 miles to the south of the east coast of our country. The history of relationships between Canada and those islands is as old or indeed older than Confederation. It is as old as commerce in terms of Canada. In the earliest days our roots, our connections, and our associations with the Caribbean were well established. Those roots and those trade associations continue. I am sure they will continue in the years ahead.
What the hon. member for Hillsborough was attempting to point out is this question of responsibility. The contemporary and recent history of the Caribbean has been one of unsettlement, of striving for determination, of moving from one form of association to another form of association, into independence for some of the islands, and for a continuing status of the islands which he singles out in particular. Those are the islands that are not independent and remain part of the Commonwealth.
Those of us who are maritimers have to be aware of the debt that we owe to the people of the islands. That is the debt which has risen out of our trade with them over the years. We are aware of the friendship they have extended to us, not only as tourists. Tourism in the Caribbean is relatively a new thing in terms of the lengthy history we have in association with the
April 22, 1977

people of those islands. I am referring to the debts that arose out of our common heritage in the Commonwealth, the friendships that developed, and the business associations that were established and continued for well over 150 years. We have firms in the Atlantic provinces which have been doing business with the islands continuously for that period of time. These are associations which in a unique way place us in their debt.
If I understand the plea of the hon. member for Hillsborough through the vehicle of this motion this afternoon, it is to recognize that we do have a debt to these people and we have to do whatever we can to be of assistance to them. One of the forms of assistance could be in the area the motion suggests. 1 find it remarkable, in reviewing the comments made to date with respect to the motion, that the three or four speakers have all said virtually the same thing. 1 could not help but wonder as I read it, who wrote it, because it is obviously a standard response hauled out every once in a while for the convenience of those members who have to sit here on Friday afternoon, 1 imagine largely against their wills.


James Aloysius McGrath: It is the elite of the House you are talking about.


J. Michael Forrestall: I was not talking about the distinguished Newfoundlanders who feel it a continuous pleasure to sit here. It strikes me that others throw out this package speech whenever necessary, and they use it in order to ensure that ideas such as this one simply do not come to any positive conclusion.
The suggestion that we cannot improve the status of certain people because it might have an effect on neighbouring people seems to me ridiculous, going beyond the request in the motion itself to the hypothetical situation of a union. It seems to me that to reject it because of the reasons put forward by earlier speakers on the government side would be ludicrous. What right do we have, for example, to deny anybody the benefits that could flow from a closer political or economic union with Canada simply because somebody else next door might not like it? I do not think that that argument makes much sense. Indeed it has been suggested by the hon. member for Hillsborough that it is a very narrow and selfish point of view to take. There are many advantages that could accrue to those nonindependent islands from a closer association with Canada. However, that is not what the motion seeks.
I spoke earlier of my perception of the debt we owe these people. I find that one way of discharging that debt, or at least reminding them that we are aware of it, is suggested in the motion, that is, that the matter of a closer political and economic union be studied by a joint committee of the two Houses. If it does nothing else, surely that continues to indicate to the people involved, indeed to the entire Caribbean, that if they ever desire to look to a larger country, a new currency base, a country with modern social programs and institutions already in place, they would know with some certainty that Canadians are interested-not that we would reject them because we can find reasons here and there to say to ourselves that all this would be unfair, that it would be a
West Indies
disadvantage, that it is a very complex thing and we must be careful that we are not hurting others by any precipitous action in this area. That is a hodgepodge of nonsense.
The hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) addressed himself to this matter. I will quote him. I could quote also the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Leblanc) who said much the same thing.
1 quote from Hansard of November 19, 1976, when the matter was introduced and first dealt with in this context. At page 1217 of Hansard we read the following, spoken by the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine:
Even though on the face of it such investments in tourist facilities may seem attractive, the over-all impact must be studied within the context of the total area, like everything else that involves the Commonwealth Caribbean. Increased investments and tourist trade in a given area would most likely deprive other countries of the Commonwealth Caribbean of their revenues from those sources. This would lead to increased unemployment levels and lower living standards in those other countries. Such is certainly not the aim pursued by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie).
He went on to suggest:
This could dry up capital for other Caribbean countries, restraining their traditional share of the Canadian market.
The hon. member went on to suggest a whole lot of dastardly things that could happen because a joint committee of the Parliament of Canada sat down to address itself to these questions in an orderly fashion. I think that is nonsense, and such things would not happen at all.
As much as I may love the Turks and Caicos Islands, whenever 1 get $500 or $600, 1 go to Barbados, and 1 will continue to do that. I have been doing that for 25 or 30 years. That would not divert my money and, even if it did, it would not break them. These arguments are not really to be taken too seriously. 1 do not understand the intransigence of the government with respect to this question.
Again, as pointed out clearly, the intention of the motion is not to enter into a political and economic union but rather to review the matter, to find out whether there is any basis to the allegations brought out by members on the government side. Quite the contrary, I think it is a selfish attitude, as has been said before, to fail to help those who might express a desire for our help simply because that might help somebody else. 1 do not see much logic in that.
For those who are even remotely serious about this question there are a number of useful documents available, and at the risk of a little free publicity here I will draw the attention of hon. members to a book drawing together a series of papers on Canada and the Third World edited by Peyton V. Lyon and Tareg Y. Ismael, published by Macmillan of Canada, in which the distinguished member for Hillsborough deals with the West Indies in great depth, setting them in the context of Canada and the Third World. It is a rather lengthy academic treatment of the subject, but is filled with a lot of useful information. I am sure that if hon. members were to spend an hour or two with it, it might turn around some of their present attitudes with regard to the motion to a position of support for it. I commend to them the section on Canada and the Third

April 22, 1977
West Indies
World entitled "Canada and the Caribbean" written by the distinguished author Macquarrie, scholar and friend, and hon. member for Hillsborough.
Coming back directly to the subject of the motion in front of us it seems to me that there are real barriers in terms of letting this matter go to a further level. For example, we have a few members in this Chamber on the government side who are adamant in not letting the motion go to a committee of the House in its present form. Perhaps some member on the government side, when participating later in the debate, might consider reference of the subject matter of the motion of the hon. member for Hillsborough to a joint committee of the two Houses, or to a committee of this House. But whatever, 1 appeal to hon. members opposite and to the government, at the very least to let us demonstrate and continue to demonstrate to the people of the Caribbean the sincerity of our position with respect to the relationship between our two countries.
Let us at least be given an opportunity to show them that we are serious in these intentions to devote some of our time to looking at their problem in the mid-1970's, to look with some competence at the future which lies ahead for them, to look at their social needs, to look at their needs for upgraded educational standards, to look at their needs for other forms of assistance and help that we can give to them, and not just look at the programs we have going through institutions such as CIDA, CUSO and other groups, and at the private work being done in many of these countries by churches, by educational groups and so on.
Let us consider the benefits we can extend to that part of the world. I urge hon. members not to be caught up with the usual selfish line we get from the government side with respect to this matter. Let us think for a moment or two to see if we can find some way to extend and broaden that great friendship we owe those people, to find a way to demonstrate to them very clearly that should they ever express a desire to find close political and economic ties with this country, at least in this country there would be an open door and a very warm welcome for them.


Frank A. Philbrook: Mr. Speaker, 1 have wanted to speak on this issue ever since 1 first read about it in the newspapers. That was long before 1 got into politics. 1 quite sincerely find this a startling and alarming proposal. The hon. member's motion raises a subject which has been touched upon in the past in one way or another, and no doubt it is very appealing for busy, frozen Canadians to have delightful thoughts of a warm, tropical island.
The suggestion that a special joint committee be appointed to consider the advisability of taking the initiative to promote closer relations with former British possessions in the West Indies such as the Turks and Caicos Islands goes on to suggest that if the residents of any of these islands so desire, their economic and political union with Canada could be negotiated at an early date. So we have not just a benign proposal here for a committee, but one which suggests leading to some serious
[Mr. Forrestall.)
commitment. The concept embodied in this motion was discussed here in November of last year and in May of 1975, and I personally would have thought that that would have taken care of it very nicely.
Many pros and cons respecting this proposal have already been put forward in this House. I would like, however, to bring out today some points of importance and explain why I believe they represent very serious concerns, certainly to me and, I believe, to others. 1 believe also that the government is serious in resisting these proposals and that it is not just being political.
The suggestion before us is an interesting one which at a first and superficial glance would appear to continue our history of relations with the countries of the Commonwealth Caribbean. I believe, however, that the constitutional step envisaged in the hon. member's motion would not be the culmination but rather a serious distortion and derogation from the established and generally happy modus vivendi between Canada and its fellow Commonwealth members in the Caribbean. That would be a shame.
1 would like to begin by touching briefly on the close relations we have enjoyed for many years with the countries of the Caribbean in various fields; for example, trade and commerce, investment, immigration, transport, tourism and education. In the trade field beneficial relations with our friends in the Commonwealth Caribbean have existed fruitfully for many years, since the days when cod, flour, rum and sugar were the main foundation of a flourishing reciprocal trade.
With the arrival of independence for some of the Caribbean territories and associate statehood for others, we have strengthened those economic ties. As the problems of development have become strongly evident and urgent, we have played an increasingly vigorous part in the fight to overcome a basic problem of insufficient resources for the people in the Caribbean. Many people from the Commonwealth Caribbean have visited Canada, and some have fought in our armed forces, including the Prime Minister of Jamaica, the Hon. Robert Manley, who paid us a very interesting official visit last year.
The exchange of visits between Canadian and Caribbean leaders is a regular feature of our relationship, and the biennial Commonwealth heads of government conferences provide a further chance for informal as well as formal discussions between friends who play important roles in the developed and developing world. At the wider personal level, in the fields of tourism, education, and immigration, the peoples of Canada and the Commonwealth Caribbean have grown to like and help each other. Canada has gained many attractive, worthy and capable citizens from the Commonwealth Caribbean, particularly in the last 15 years, while a number of fortunate Canadians are part-time residents of the Caribbean islands.
In addition to trade and investment, transportation is a further economic link of importance to both sides.
We are now in the process of replacing two old trade agreements, that of 1925 and the 1966 protocol, by an up to date relationship which takes into account realistically the
April 22, 1977

commitments of both sides. Three rounds of consultations have so far taken place, and the processs should be completed this year. As my colleague mentioned, CARICOM, the Caribbean Community and Common Market, would benefit from industrial co-operation, and we hope this will be a feature of our new treaty relationship. I think Canada would probably benefit from that too. As hon. members know, the Caribbean Common Market includes independent states and the six Windward and Leeward Islands, five of which are not yet fully independent but are likely to be so within the next few years.
This is an example of how we are in the process of developing and evolving our relations in the Commonwealth Caribbean in the light of current needs and concepts. We are doing so on the basis of equality and independence, and that needs to be underlined. A step now based on inequality and dependence would cut right across the path we have followed with mutual trust.
I do not believe that we need to, or should, distort and replace this healthy system of natural growth and economic partnership by the unbalanced, one-sided and disproportionate step of legally absorbing into Canada one or more of the small territories which are many miles distant.
Let us consider the effect of the suggested action on the Turks and Caicos Islands. How would the people react and be affected by a legal link with Canada? Would they not be psychologically and sociologically upset by the lifting of all barriers between them and the distant mainland? 1 do not think we know the answers. Would their economy not be strained and distorted by a rush of capital? That may sound like a rather funny suggestion, but in fact there is much experience with this type of problem, particularly in the Third World. Much of the private investment would probably concentrate on tourism, perhaps to the detriment of longer term development projects.
It is true that Canadian government resources for development would be available from DREE and other institutions in an effort to bring the islands up to the level of their Canadian confederation counterparts. Such an effort, however, might create tensions as less developed regions on the Canadian mainland compete for resources with the new Caribbean region. Surely it is within our capability and integral to our heritage as a nation, founded on principles of evolution to independence, to encourage a self-sustaining current of development in these islands and to consider-much less implement-the type of paternalistic structure anticipated by the form of relationship in question. I think that would be inevitable.
The economy of the Turks and Caicos is simple. It encompasses tourism and foreign residents, including Canadians. It is understandable, therefore, that the Turks and Caicos Islands and their people should have a friendly interest in our country. However, if we legally swallowed them, even though at their own wish, we would naturally have to raise their standard of services to Canadian levels. The resulting dissatisfaction in
West Indies
other Caribbean territories with equal or lower per capita incomes would then be inevitable and could sour relations in the area on a wide front. Presumably this would lead to some kind of chain reaction.
Neocolonialism is not a nice word, but the charge of neocolonialism could then be levelled at Canada, of all countries, in various international forums. We are proud of our record in those organizations, and outside them, of strong support for colonial peoples in their advance to self-determination and independence during the last 30 years. It would indeed be a pity if our commendable record in this field were spoiled by misunderstandings created almost inevitably by our constitutional absorption of small territories. This unusual, perhaps anachronistic-we might say "bucking the trend"- step might damage our relationships with other underdeveloped countries which, like the Caribbean, have dealt with us on the basis of mutual consultation and have respected us for our anti-colonial and anti-apartheid policies and for our practice of not making unfair use of our economic strength in our relations with developing countries. Historically it has been Canada's firm belief that the prospect of becoming an imperial power would be detrimental to our traditions and best interests. It is thoroughly un-Canadian.
The hon. member recognizes that this is a complex subject, as is evident by the terms of his proposal. He suggests that Canada should be ready to negotiate economic and political union if so requested by the people of the Caribbean countries concerned. But let us for a moment ponder the possible types of constitutional association the committee would be expected to consider and recommend. Surely we must reject on principle any arrangement which confers an inferior status on the associating territory. Even if this were acceptable and had the support of the local population, the people of the Turks and Caicos, we would be transgressing the fundamental principle of avoiding imperial involvement. We are probably the last country in the world which would want to become involved in that kind of activity. We would not want to do it in an age in which even the smallest of states is regarded as having the right to full independence.
If we, therefore, rule out any form of dependent status, we have the option open to us of conferring full and equal participation in the structure of confederation which, ultimately, would mean full provincial status for the islands. Certainly absorption into an existing province would be impossible, and the arrangements we have made for the Yukon and Northwest Territories, developed as they were in response to the special needs of the north, would not provide a viable precedent in the very different circumstances of the adhesion of new overseas territories to Canada. This applies especially to territories in the tropics. Therefore are we seriously to entertain the prospect of burdening the Turks and Caicos with the full panoply of provincial governments, participation in first ministers' conferences, and consideration of attempts to amend the Canadian constitution? Surely not.
I am well aware that the hon. member is genuinely concerned to ensure that Canada should fill honourably its long-

April 22, 1977
West Indies
standing commitment to good relations with the Commonwealth Caribbean and that we should provide, to the greatest degree possible assistance to the countries of this area at this crucial stage in their evolution. I would submit, however, that this can better be accomplished by means other than a form of constitutional association.
I suppose that is particularly true at the present time, when we are concerned about relations with one of our provinces, Quebec. It is very much to be hoped that the Canadian relationship with the Commonwealth Caribbean will continue to be accorded a high priority among our international commitments. It would, however, manifestly not be in the best interests of the Commonwealth Caribbean if a committee such as the hon. member suggests were established, since such action would be bound to excite interest and speculation in the Commonwealth Caribbean and might tend to detract from the urgent need to deal with Quebec's existing problems. The non-acceptance of this motion would not, I emphasize, in any way indicate a lack of interest by this House in the Commonwealth Caribbean and, most particularly, in the small countries which would have such difficulty in establishing themselves as viable individual entities.
I suggest we must ensure the continuation of the healthy and balanced relationship between Canada and the Commonwealth Caribbean. This must certainly mean the maintenance of an important trading relationship and the continuation of Canada's development assistance program, although the manner of channelling this aid will depend on the particular requirements of individual countries and the evolution of institutions enabling greater regional co-operation. There is nothing new about such ideas. These ideas have been evident in our dealings with countries all around the world, particularly of the Third World. Actually our experience with Third World countries should help us greatly in our dealings with the Commonwealth Caribbean. Of course I refer not only to CARICOM, but to institutions such as the Caribbean Development Bank and the University of the West Indies. Canada has long participated with these organizations to further the economic development and higher education of Caribbean members of the Commonwealth.
Canada will certainly maintain a friendly but not intrusive-and intrusive is the important, operative word-interest in the political as well as economic development within the Commonwealth Caribbean. For the sorts of reasons I have outlined, however, the serious consideration of a constitutional link by a parliamentary committee would not be in the best interests of either the countries in the region or of Canada, and might end up by damaging the good rapport which now exists. Mr. Speaker, for these important reasons I urge the House not to accept the motion.
[Translation}


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I am always impressed by the motions presented by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) because they are always inter-

esting to discuss in the House especially during private members' hour. I think that perhaps the strains of the winter which has just ended have generated some kind of infatuation for the warm countries which permeated his thought when he introduced this motion in the House.
The establishment of economic, political or other ties with those Caribbean islands amuse me, because all the great powers of the world have voluntarily or involuntarily relinquished their possessions. I do not see why Canada, almost as big as a continent, with regional problems and economic disparities throughout its territory, could flirt with the southern islands which would become for us a kind of Hawaii or Florida.
We have no experience of that type of tourist industry, except that Air Canada keeps advertising its "Flights to the 14 suns". They might have to rename it the flights to the 16 suns now, but to my mind this is totally inadequate. In my opinion, instead of being satisfied with leisure trading or trying through other means to send Canadians to spend their winter in those West Indies islands, we should address ourselves to problems of far greater scope in Canada and I have precisely in mind a land issue. Why not improve the land we have, the national capital region-


Mr. Bechard:: The Magdalen Islands!


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: -where everyone lives in what is called the national capital area? But no one has a thorough knowledge of the history of the national capital area. Nobody knows what troubles people living on the Quebec or Ontario side of the capital area have gone through. We should attempt to find a solution so that within that economic region, which is the same on either side of the Ottawa River, a region agreed upon and set up under an act of Parliament in 1958, and which is called the national capital area, better standards of living might be established. There are large discrepancies, Mr. Speaker, due to the fact that the Canadian Parliament is not located in a region of its own, that it is situated in a province called Ontario. We call it the national capital area because the government owns buildings on the other side of the river. Parliament would be much better off if located in a region of its own, under its full jurisdiction, where it could pass legislation, provide education and become a kind of laboratory. This might serve as an experiment for the implementation of bilingualism or any other thing dealing with the civil service or public administration, or simply at the university level so that the Parliament of Canada not be divided or taken over by the governments of Ontario and Quebec. They are dividing the capital of Canada among themselves. And I would be happy if the hon. member for Hillsborough, whose deep knowledge of history is well known, could introduce in the House, especially during private members' hour, either in the form of a motion or simply of a private bill, a measure dealing with the famous question of the national capital region, making it once and for all a kind of federal district so that the capital of Canada can be truly the capital of Canada.
April 22, 1977

Only then might we consider going south and basking in the sun, once the problems of this region and other problems of Canadian life are solved. 1 am sure that other intelligent members-because 1 do not know of many who are not-will certainly write down something one day so that the idea I just mentioned can be discussed on one occasion or another.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Submit your own motion.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: I have my own, but we won't discuss it right now. 1 am trying to sell the idea first so that when I come in with my own, everyone will understand.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Mr. Speaker, I think the idea is valid but this economic and political relationship would certainly cause some problem, particularly for the Canadian Armed Forces. I know that members of the Canadian Armed Forces will certainly wish to serve in those islands from time to time. But in case of a conflict I wonder if it would be very efficient knowing as we do that our equipment is not quite up to snuff.
It might be better to keep our own equipment. The army is excellent, but its equipment should be renewed, improved, modernized before we go look for islands throughout the world so that Canadians can go there in winter to lay in the sun. 1 encourage them to go to Florida, it is closer, only a three-hour flight, tourism is already organized in Florida and we would spend less money. You can phone there easily. It would be a
West Indies
long time before you could organize an efficient and satisfying tourism service on those islands. 1 think that pioneer days are over. We have been pioneers for several centuries, here in Canada, and I think it would not be very appealing to start all over again.
So I hope my colleagues will not blame me for spinning out my remarks on this motion so that it may die on the order paper. I am sure that if I can give them a helping hand as was expressed by my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), it will encourage my colleagues to consider the bill I submitted in the House to amend section 16 of the Constitution. I do not wish to comment on it now as I know that my learned colleagues have other fish to fry before dealing with the national capital area. But if this hint I am giving them today is inspired by my colleague for Winnipeg North Centre, I am quite pleased.
OO)
I therefore invite all my colleagues of the House and all Canadian organizations to reflect on the amendment to section 16 of the Constitution through which it would be possible to change, not Ottawa as the capital of Canada, but the area so that the whole national capital area might become the capital of Canada. Whether we are part of one province or another area matters little-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At five o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
34

Monday, April 25, 1977