1977-06-03

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, namely, marine traffic in oil and other hazardous cargo along the west coast of Canada. In view of the fact that Dr. Andrew Thompson indicated yesterday that he is anxious to continue his investigation under the Public Inquiries Act into the marine and environmental risks of west coast tanker traffic, and in view of the fact that the abandonment of the Kitimat proposal may result in substantially higher volumes of tanker traffic in the Georgia Strait and the Strait of Juan de Fuca, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen):
That the Thompson Committee, under the Public Inquiries Act, be instructed to continue its investigations and, if necessary, that the inquiry's terms of reference be amended to permit it to shift its emphasis from the Kitimat area to the Strait of Georgia and the Strait of Juan de Fuca.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the Social Credit Party of Canada moved an opposition motion on Wednesday last, an allotted day, about an extremely important matter and that the media,
especially the CBC, did not mention it; considering that yesterday the members of the Social Credit Party of Canada moved the adjournment of the House to protest strongly against such discrimination by the CBC, which did not even have the decency to mention the event on the news yesterday, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That this House direct the Secretary of State to assume his responsibilities and to see to it that this Crown corporation refrain from laughing at the elected representatives of the people by suppressing or failing to draw to the attention of the public the activities of the House, especially the days devoted to a particular motion.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CONFEDERATION
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a question of urgent and pressing necessity in connection with the tinkering by this government with the things of our heritage by administrative action, as it has endeavoured in the last few years to change the statutory name of the national holiday on July 1 from Dominion Day to Canada Day, and the present anticipated change in the capital city of Canada, which would require an amendment of the British North America Act, which provides that Ottawa shall be the capital. Such actions constitute an affront to parliament and are a denial of the basic principles of the rule of law under the constitution. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That a committee of both Houses be set up to look into and report on the step-by-step erosive action that is being taken, not by parliament but by the government of Canada, in the whittling away by surreptitious means the traditional things of the heritage of our country and to put a stop to it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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

June 3, 1977
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister and it arises from the profound concern that the Inuit of northern Quebec have about their right to use freely either official language-a right which is part and parcel of the James Bay Agreement which was passed only last month by this House. Despite extensive negotiation with the Quebec culture minister, Camille Laurin, the Inuit have failed to obtain the written guarantees of exemption from the provisions of Bill One, which I would respectfully suggest they have a right to expect. My question to the Prime Minister is this. Has he or any of his ministers contacted the Quebec ministers and spoken to them directly and frankly about this parliament's determination to ensure that the language rights of native people are preserved?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have not taken any such step because it was my understanding that the Inuit had reached an agreement with the Quebec authorities. However, if that is not correct, I will of course consider whether further action should be taken.


Walter David Baker: My understanding is that there has not been that agreement. There has not been the written guarantee that they expected. I look forward to hearing from the Prime Minister with regard to his actions once he has checked that out. Yesterday the Prime Minister told us of a special bureaucracy that was set up to investigate the language rights of Francophone minorities outside of Quebec. Is it the intention of the government to establish a similar inquiry into the language rights of Inuit people in Quebec which this government has a special constitutional mandate to protect?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the hon. member misunderstood the nature of the question and the answer yesterday. I did not talk about a special bureaucracy to go out and do certain things. I said we had received a brief from a certain group such as we receive all the time from all kinds of groups across the country. We have them examined by the bureaucracy and we will do that in this particular case.


LEGAL OPINION ON IMPACT OF QUEBEC LANGUAGE CHARTER ON INUIT-REQUEST FOR REPORT
Walter David Baker: Perhaps the Prime Minister will advise the House whether it is his intention to make a statement with regard to this very important matter once this examination has taken place. With regard to a statement or an indication given by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that he would be able to give this House a legal opinion on the impact of the language bill in Quebec on native peoples, to the Prime Minister's knowledge, has the minister obtained this opinion? Will the Prime Minister now tell the House what this opinion is so that it may form part of the evidence to be presented to the legislative committee hearings on the bill about to begin in Quebec City?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will gladly inquire, Mr. Speaker, and make a report on it.


REASON FOR FAILURE TO STUDY RIGHTS OF ANGLOPHONES IN QUEBEC
William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in response to a question by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal the Prime Minister said that the interdepartmental study group had been set up to study the rights of multicultural groups, Indian native groups and Eskimo groups, in addition to studying the rights of Francophone minorities outside the province of Quebec. I was astonished that nowhere did he mention the Anglophone minority in Quebec. Will the Prime Minister advise why the government is not devoting resources to make a similar study of language and other rights of the one million plus Anglophones in Quebec and will he rectify this lapse immediately if in fact there has been such a lapse?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why the opposition cannot comprehend my answers and what in fact went on.


An hon. Member:: Because you are incomprehensible.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Perhaps I am incomprehensible. If the opposition will give me time, I will try to spell it out in very elementary language. The federal government receives voluminous briefs from numbers of people throughout the year. Sometimes they are from the Federation of Agriculture, sometimes from the Association of Mariners and other times they might be from the Board of Trade. This time it was from a group of Francophones outside Quebec. It is our duty to look into these representations and study these briefs. We did this once again on Tuesday. We said we received a brief and that we would look into it. That is what happened.


POSSIBILITY INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE WILL STUDY BRIEFS FROM MINORITY GROUPS OTHER THAN FRANCOPHONES
William Herbert Jarvis: Yesterday in reply to the hon. member for Fundy-Royal the Prime Minister said that they, referring to the briefs, have all been dealt with in a
June 3, 1977

similar manner and parallel fashion. If a minority group submits a brief of this nature to the Prime Minister or any of his colleagues, is it a matter of government policy that such brief shall be referred to the special or ongoing interdepartmental committee to deal with it in a manner similar to that dealt with as a result of the brief from the Francophone group representing Canadians of French-speaking origin outside the province of Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. This was a group set up to study this particular brief. If we receive another brief, from another group, we will see in what way it can best be studied. I gave the example yesterday of a very important representation which we received from the native people of Canada. In that case we did not name an interdepartmental committee of officials; we set up a particular group of ministers, and that ad hoc group of ministers, chaired by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, looked after the representations of the natives. If I get a brief from the Anglophones of Montreal, I will see how it can best be dealt with.


PROPOSED REFERENCE OF QUEBEC'S BILL ONE TO SUPREME COURT-NEGOTIATIONS WITH QUEBEC ON RIGHTS OF ANGLOPHONES
William Herbert Jarvis: I will move on to an allied subject. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that it is still his intention that the constitutionality of bill one be tested in the courts, and, in addition, will he tell the House why there are no ongoing negotiations with Quebec, so that the federal government may assist the provinces to protect the rights of the Francophone majority without infringing on the entrenched rights of the Anglophone minority and those English speaking Canadians who, at some future time, may wish to live, work and contribute to the prosperity of Quebec and of Canada as a whole?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would like to know what suggestion the hon. member is making. Is he suggesting that we should appear before a parliamentary committee in Quebec and make our views known there? I would suggest that perhaps the Tory party could send one of its eminent Quebecers to do this.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: You can send Goyer; he is your emissary.


ALLEGED FAILURE TO KEEP COMMITMENTS TO FRANCOPHONES LIVING OUTSIDE QUEBEC-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister on the same subject. In his answer today the Prime Minister has suggested that he has set up an interdepartmental committee to look into the proposals or suggestions that were presented by the Francophone community outside the province of Quebec. In a quotation of a
Oral Questions
statement attributed to him in the press on Wednesday of this week, he seems to have gone much further than he indicated here today. I quote from the press of Wednesday of this week where he says that the interdepartmental committee will "propose a series of actions", and, related to the Prime Minister's expressed concern for the problem of French Canadian rights outside the province of Quebec, "if we are not to have just French in Quebec and English elsewhere".
The point of these quotations is not to raise some spurious point about a contradiction here but to suggest that the Prime Minister has indicated that the government is prepared to come forward with some concrete proposals, some detailed plans of action. It seems to me that this general commitment would be taken more seriously had it not been for the complete reneging on two specific commitments made by the former secretary of state in a letter to this group dated March 30, 1976. Two very specific commitments were made, not one of which has been acted upon. I should like to ask the Prime Minister, first of all, why the commitment to set up a precise structure in the Department of the Secretary of State to deal exclusively with Francophone rights of the Francophone community outside the province of Quebec was not lived up to.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not know in what form this commitment was made and in what way it was delivered. I will inquire.


John Edward Broadbent: Since the Prime Minister is not as familiar with that as I would have hoped, given the expressed concern which would generally exist, I will address my question to the Secretary of State. Could he tell us why the commitment, which was made in a letter dated March 30, 1976 to which I referred just now, was not lived up to, and, related to that, could he also tell the House why the commitment that was made to establish specific bilingual programs in each of the areas in Canada was not lived up to as well, when this commitment was made more than a year ago?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: The hon. gentleman is referring to a letter which was issued before I became Secretary of State.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you check with Goyer.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, it may be that I missed the first part of the hon. member's reference to the letter. I am not exactly sure to what commitment he is referring. If the hon. member would bring the matter to my attention in the House again next week, I would try to reply in detail. If he could be more specific and give me a more exact description of what he is referring to, I might be able to reply at this moment, but I missed the hon. member's first reference to the letter, which obviously was not issued over my signature since 1 was not the Secretary of State at the time. I would be happy to try to reply in more detail if I could find out exactly to what the hon. member is referring.
6262

June 3, 1977
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will tell the minister that the Francophone community outside the province of Quebec is skeptical about the commitment. I will list the promises which were made in the letter dated March 30, 1976 by the minister's predecessor. The first was to establish a specific section within the minister's department to deal exclusively with Francophone rights and programs outside the province of Quebec. That promise has not been lived up to. The second promise was to establish a co-ordinator for bilingual programs in each of the areas involved outside Quebec. That, too, has not been lived up to. The third concern which the community now has is that the allocation of some $5 million in the government's estimates for programs in this area outside the province of Quebec, normally allocated by the first of April, has not yet been made, some two months later, and in spite of the fact the present minister has received two telegrams requesting the date for the allocation of the funds so that the Francophone groups outside the province of Quebec could do something, no response has yet been received by the minister. Could he tell us why?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there was no mention of these subjects at the meeting I had the other day with the Secretary of State and this particular group. I do not know if the group is now trying to make representations through the Leader of the New Democratic Party or if the hon. member is just being mischievous, but I assure him that there was no reference to this in our exchange the other day. The group asked us to do certain things, and we said that we would do those things. Perhaps the group is now asking for something else, in which case we will consider what it is asking for.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
A few weeks ago, I asked the minister whether his officials or himself had had discussions with the Quebec transport minister concerning improvements to be made to the Mont-magny municipal airport. The minister replied then that he would examine the matter and advise the House shortly. Is he in a position today to advise the House whether he has indeed had discussions with Quebec officials and whether they have reached together a decision which would benefit the region?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have not had a report on the nature of the discussions between officials of my department and the ministry of transport of the province of Quebec, and I do not therefore know whether that item was reached on the agenda. However, I will check into that and let the hon. member know.


TRANSPORT
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Is the minister in a position to give the House details of the sinking of the William Carsonl Evidence indicates that the ship went down under near perfect weather conditions and with near perfect night time visibility. The vessel was equipped with all the latest navigational sonar and radar equipment. Is the minister now in a position to give the House details on this near tragedy?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker. We are investigating the matter, and presumably there will be answers to these questions. I am happy to say that the accident occurred without any loss of life, and at the present time we are dealing with the problem of getting the passengers to their destination as quickly as possible. Of course, the investigation will go on.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I presume that there will be an inquiry, and I do not want to pre-judge that inquiry. Before the inquiry is established, however, would the minister personally look into the recommendations on the last sinking that took place off the coast of Newfoundland in 1970 when the SS Patrick Morris sank? A judicial inquiry at that time made three specific recommendations-better dispersal of search and rescue aircraft to shorten the reaction time, a review of reaction and search and rescue procedures and an increase in the number of personnel. Would the minister review the report and see if these recommendations were carried out?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to review the report but of course as hon. members know, major improvements have been made to the search and rescue capability in that area. The search and rescue facilities played a very important part in handling this particular situation.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister explain to the House why it took three hours for the National Defence search and rescue helicopters based in Gander to be dispatched to the scene? The search and rescue request went from St. John's to Gander at 9.10 p.m. The helicopters did not leave Gander until midnight and they arrived over the site at 2 a.m. This meant that a number of the survivors from the ship which sank at 10 p.m. were on the ice that length of time and could have lost their lives.

June 3, 1977


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the reaction time was less than was expected for the helicopters to get on the scene. There were not only two Labrador helicopters from Gander but an Argus and a Buffalo aircraft from Summerside, all of which arrived about the same time, plus the helicopter from the Canadian coast guard ship Sir Humphrey Gilbert. There were also six Sea Kings alerted from Summerside, two of which had reached Gander and there was a further Hercules on alert.
The reaction was very fast, taking the flying time into consideration. Forty-two people were evacuated by armed forces helicopters and 80 by the Canadian coast guard helicopter onto the coast guard ship. The whole operation moved very smoothly and was a classic example of cooperation between the various departments, particularly the Department of Transport and the Department of National Defence. I think great credit goes to the skipper, Captain Hinks of the William Carson who handled the situation with calmness and maintained calmness on board. All the rescue gear was in working order and the ship rescue team operated with a high degree of efficiency.


TRANSPORT
Mr. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport with regard to the sinking of the William Carson off Battle Harbour last night. First of all, however, I should like to ask the minister to convey to the coast guard and through the Minister of National Defence to the Canadian armed forces, our congratulations and thanks on the very effective way in which the rescue was carried out last night.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bill Rompkey: All the reports reaching me from my riding indicate that a very effective job was done. 1 want to ask the Minister of Transport, because this is a vital link between Newfoundland and Labrador, what initiatives he is prepared to take to replace that vessel. There are people in Goose Bay waiting to get out to the island and other parts of Canada for various reasons. This vital link needs to be replaced right away and I ask the minister what initiatives he is prepared to take to find a replacement for the William Carson as soon as possible?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the compliments from the hon. member and I shall certainly pass them on to the people who deserve them. We have been in touch with CN Marine and they are looking at the question of how fast alternative service can be made available by replacing the William Carson.
Oral Questions


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM DATE ON WHICH AGREEMENT ON RESTRAINT EXPECTED PRIOR TO ENDING CONTROLS
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Further to the Prime Minister's answer yesterday dealing with the binding agreement that he anticipates among the economic decision-makers in the country for voluntary restraint, which appears to be a contradiction in terms, would he indicate if he has set some deadline, at least in his own mind, for when this agreement is to be entered into bearing in mind that the Minister of Finance indicated that within two months he intends to announce a date to commence decontrols?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 indicated to the hon. member that the understanding we are looking for should be as binding as possible. I used those words precisely because there was the possibility of contradiction in the hon. member's understanding of it. Obviously that understanding or agreement would have to be reached before we remove controls.


GOVERNMENT POSITION ON ENDING CONTROLS IF AGREEMENT ON RESTRAINT NOT OBTAINED
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statements of the Minister of Finance on several occasions, including the statement before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, that he will announce a date when the decontrols phase will begin, would the Prime Minister indicate if he has not obtained a sufficiently binding agreement, as he calls it, with respect to these decision-makers, then am I correct in assuming that the decontrol date will not be announced as the Minister of Finance has indicated?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, my recollection of the position of the Minister of Finance is that, as he said in the budget, the date would not be before October 14 unless certain agreements were reached. That is still the mandate under which we are working.


CONFIRMATION OF MINISTER'S STATEMENT ON DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECONTROL PERIOD
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Would the minister care to confirm the statement he made to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs that he would announce the decontrol date before the end of July?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we expect to make that announcement in mid-summer.
80016-56'^

June 3, 1977
Oral Questions DOMINION DAY


AUTHORITY FOR CHANGING NAME TO &quot;CANADA DAY&quot;
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. I am very glad that a celebration has been put on for Dominion Day again, something that was inaugurated under my administration but was subsequently discontinued. I would ask the minister on what authority he has sent out notices advertising the fact that on July 1-on "Canada Day" to use the expression he uses-on what authority does he purport to act in changing the statutory name to Canada Day?


John (Moody) Roberts: First of all I should like to say how much pleasure it gives me to carry on the good work begun by the former Prime Minister and to expand and develop it to an even greater degree. There has been no indication on my part that I have unilaterally in any way changed the name of Dominion Day. There is of course legislation before the House to change the name to Canada Day. My view is, quite simply, that what we are doing is celebrating the birthday of my country; my country is Canada; I love it very much and that is the name that I intend to use.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I ask the custodian of our heritage, the Secretary of State-because that is actually what he is-what right he had to bring about a change? Administrative lawlessness is the only fitting description of it. I do not ask what his personal opinion is. Was this a Cabinet decision and if so what business does the government of Canada have to make a change contrary to statute?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I would assure the right hon. gentleman that he could not find a person less lawless than myself. Perhaps he will be satisfied if I tell him that this year we are celebrating Canada Day on the same day as Dominion Day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SOURCE OF RADON GAS IN HASTINGS COUNTY-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. An investigative group sponsored by his department has been looking into the effects of radon gas in the north part of Hastings County. They recently discovered alarming quantities of radon gas in the Farraday township area. Can the minister say what the source of that radon gas is and what has been done to overcome the problem?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the survey work to which the hon.

member referred is being conducted by the federal-provincial task force formed to identify areas of unacceptably high radioactivity across the country, particularly those affecting work places and places where people live. The survey has already covered about 776 houses in the environs of the town of Bancroft. I think by the end of this month we will have covered about 2,000 homes. So far, only four homes have been identified as having unacceptably high levels of radiation; clearly, ventilation will be necessary, and the owners have been so instructed. A number of other homes will need to be examined again. I am told that the source of radioactivity is old mine tailings, mine waste, used for fill or building purposes in connection with these houses.


RADIATION LEVELS IN HASTINGS COUNTY-SAFETY OF PRACTICES OF MADAWASKA MINES
John Raymond Ellis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I understand that radiation levels are unacceptable in 100-odd houses. Since these radiation levels have been discovered in the area of the Madawaska mines, can the minister say if that mine's mining practices in the uranium belt are safe, and are the miners safe in their work?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am told by the Atomic Energy Control Board that at present there is no safety hazard or health hazard. As I said in my first answer, we shall need to examine again a number of houses in which the radiation level was approaching unacceptable levels. Perhaps the hon. member was speaking of those when he mentioned the 100-odd houses. Those 100-odd will be examined again. I emphasize again that, as I am told, there is no health hazard at present.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware that the only air carrier from Frobisher Bay to six communities on Baffin Island has raised its freight rates by about 50 per cent, so that a dozen eggs now cost about $4.30 in Clyde River, of which $3 would represent transport cost. Is the minister's department considering action on this rate increase?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the question had not been brought to my attention.


Walter (Wally) Firth: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister consider introducing a general policy of freight subsidies on essential goods such as milk, bread and produce, which must now be flown to certain parts of the Arctic?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to consider such representations as we look at ways to assist remote and developmental areas.
June 3, 1977


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM INQUIRY WHETHER CONTROLS WOULD END IF NO AGREEMENT REACHED ON RESTRAINT
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Finance concerns the green paper on decontrols. I bear in mind that the green paper discusses three possible methods. The first method, relating to immediate decontrol, refers specifically to the need for voluntary restraint and firm arrangements concerning voluntary restraint. If it does anything, the green paper indicates a clear preference for the third method, which could fix a specified future date for decontrols to commence, but does not mention any agreement relating to voluntary restraint. Are we to assume, for example from what the Prime Minister said, that method three implies the requirement of firm agreement on voluntary restraint and that there would be no commencement under method three, as envisaged in the green paper, without such a firm agreement. Are we to read that into the comments made respecting method three as set out in the green paper?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the whole essence of the green paper is to secure an undertaking from major economic decision-makers in Canada not to engage in conduct which would be the opposite of restraint and start again the inflationary spiral. It can be assumed that that kind of undertaking is essential, no matter what method is used. The principal question the government must decide is, can one accept the analysis of the Canadian Labour Congress and a number of business leaders that there will not be a fresh outburst of inflation if controls are ended immediately, or should we proceed step by step to implement decontrol, preferably by using method three. In that sense, to go back to the specific question, undertakings with regard to restraint, the importance of restraint and the perception by the major decision makers of that importance are essential to whatever method is chosen.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In order to be absolutely clear, I ask this: is it the government's present policy or intention not to commence decontrol under any of those methods unless and until there is a firm agreement, or a firm undertaking of the strongest possible sort, on the part of principal decision-makers of this country to exercise restraint?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps at some point the Canadian Labour Congress or business leaders will say they do not feel they are in the position to give undertakings, but the country and the government will still be faced with the importance of phasing out controls. Obviously, with the support of those groups it would be easier to take controls off earlier. But if they cannot agree on the question of restraint, the government in the absence of their agreement would have to act on its own.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In other words, in the language of Mackenzie King, the
Oral Questions
government's position is this: a firm agreement possibly, but not necessarily?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it certainly would be desirable.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is no policy; that is a charade, a put-on.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That's nothing but fluff.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Claude Tessier (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
In spite of the fact that the administration and distribution of dairy quotas are not a responsibility of the federal government but of provincial agencies, if not of the producers themselves, with the dire consequences that this implies for the producers and the dairy policy itself, could the minister advise the House of the quotas which have become available since the beginning of the year? How were they made available? Under what conditions will they be returned to the producers? And will all producers have equal chances to recuperate the quotas of which they were deprived by their own agencies at the time of the 1976-77 readjustment?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Dairy Commission establishes a national quota for milk, allocated on the historical levels of production within each province, where there are dairy producers in that province. The Canadian Dairy Commission, for whom I answer in this House, does not administer direct quotas for the producers. Last year, when we increased quotas for the national production level by 4 million hundredweight, we tied certain conditions to that increase, saying it had to go to those people in greatest need. If the hon. member has concrete evidence to show that some producers are not being treated properly, we can make representation to the provincial marketing board. But we cannot make any specific suggestions, because this matter is totally under their jurisdiction.


AIR CANADA
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, my question, is for the Minister of Transport. I gave him notice of it so that parliament can have a definitive answer. Will the minister remind Air Canada of the provisions of the Canada Labour Code relative to maternity leave, so that when the Canadian Airline Flight Attendants Association engages

June 3, 1977
Oral Questions
in collective bargaining with the corporation, the code will prevail?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not imagine Air Canada needs to be reminded of the existence of the code. Negotiations on this question are underway at this time and I do not want to comment on their progress. I appreciate the hon. member's having given me notice of his question.


Mr. Fairweather:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the minister might consider this in the next few days: The provisions Air Canada is suggesting to the Airline Flight Attendants Association are quite unacceptable. They are much more regressive than the 1973 contract provisions. Although Air Canada may be up-to-date with air equipment procurement, its medical advice, if it has any, is of a different age and of a different century. Perhaps the minister would remind Air Canada of this.


Otto Emil Lang: Again, 1 would be delighted to join the hon. member in analysing this question in detail in a fair and positive way but I do feel the inhibition of not wishing to comment while these negotiations are in progress.


HEAVY OIL-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH FACILITIES AT LLOYD MINSTER
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It arises out of the decision of the National Energy Board to exempt heavy oil from the export licensing provisions, a move which 1 am sure is welcomed by the industry and will contribute to its stability. Since the National Energy Board also appears to be in support of the establishment of heavy crude upgrading facilities, may I ask the minister whether he has anything further to report with respect to the setting up of the 100,000 barrels-a-day project which is to be located in the Lloydminster region?


Alastair William Gillespie: As recently as yesterday I was talking to representatives of the industry with respect to the upgrading possibilities. I am told this project is being given a high priority by industrial interests including Petro-Canada. There is also considerable interest being shown on the part of the government of Venezuela in joining with Petro-Canada in the formation of a research project. Petro-Canada will be allocating $5 million to such a scheme and I believe the Venezuelans will be allocating a similar amount of money. Both countries are faced with a very similar situation. Each is running out of conventional supplies of crude and each has very substantial reserves of heavy oil. We are moving forward in a positive way. This is an important resource and I hope that in a very short time

following agreement between ourselves and the government of Alberta it will be possible to announce something more specific.


CONNAUGHT LABORATORIES
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of what now appears to be a positive decision by the minister to approve the application by the Red Cross to build a blood fractionation plant and since this work is now being done by Connaught Laboratories which is owned by the Canadian Development Corporation-one of whose policies is that the business ventures in which it is involved must show a profit- and in view of the fact that the removal of the blood fractionation work from Connaught Laboratories will place that undertaking in a much less profitable position, even endangering its existence, would the minister explain what he envisages the plant would be for if this particular work were taken away from Connaught?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The hon. member has reached a conclusion which has not yet been decided either by Connaught or by the Red Cross or by my department or by provincial departments. As I have told the hon. member before, this matter is being studied by both Connaught and the Red Cross and it is being discussed at the political level. It was one of the subjects discussed by deputy ministers recently and it will be raised again, I think, at the next ministers conference at the end of June. But there is still a lot of work to be done and I doubt that a decision will be reached in June. Several months of discussion and examination of this subject will probably still be required and no conclusion has yet been reached that either Connaught or the Red Cross would exclusively specialize in this area.


Paul Yewchuk: Can the minister give the House a categorical assurance that no action will be taken by him or by anybody in his department which will endanger the continuation of the functions of the Connaught Laboratories in Toronto and which would result in the removal of the biologies industry to the city of Montreal?


Marc Lalonde: The only assurance I can give the hon. member is that no decision will be reached until full consultations have taken place with all involved parties, and this includes the provinces. I can assure the hon. member that no decision has been reached up to this point. When a decision is taken it will, in the end, be a decision reached either by the Red Cross itself or by Connaught itself. The only other element involved would be the question of the contribution or role or intervention of the provinces and the federal government in terms of supply and support if any is required. But that position has not yet been reached by anyone.
June 3, 1977


Paul Yewchuk: Is the minister telling the House, then, that the decision will, in part, be made by Connaught as to whether the Red Cross application will be approved or not?


Marc Lalonde: Well, the Red Cross can decide some things and Connaught can decide some things. These are two agencies which are autonomous and can make their own decisions. Obviously, though, if those decisions imply support or contributions or co-operation with governments, provincial or federal, each agency will have to make up its own mind, taking into account the good relations it can have with the governments concerned.

[ Translation]


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Further to the question I put to him a few weeks ago to know whether his department intends to grant financial assistance for the improvement of Route 117, could the minister tell the House whether other meetings took place between the Quebec ministry of development and his department and, if so, whether it will take part in the improvement of this highway for which the users have been waiting so long?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say to the hon. member and to the House that I indeed met some time ago with the Hon. Jacques Leonard and we discussed the propositions which were under study at that time, including the matter of the improvement of Route 117 in northwest Quebec. The decisions that we will take or which we have already taken will be made public in due time.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In the light of the fact that Dr. Thompson is anxious to continue hearings in connection with the threat of maritime oil pollution, and in view of the answer given by the minister yesterday to the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot, would the minister give the House a commitment that the Thompson hearings will continue, especially since the information gained from them would be very useful in the negotiations with the United States?
Oral Questions


Otto Emil Lang: I have begun conversations with my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, on this issue. We shall be discussing the matter further and, no doubt, talking with Dr. Thompson as well about the most effective way to deal with the challenges which may emerge from the new circumstances in relation to tankers.


Benno Friesen: Would the minister consider shifting the emphasis of the hearings to the lower mainland of British Columbia and Vancouver Island, bearing in mind that part of the corporate strategy might be to use the increased public outcry in the lower mainland as a means of making the Kitimat proposal look more attractive?


Otto Emil Lang: We shall have to look at the whole question, including the aspects relating to the United States section of any proposal. This is why we shall want to consider the matter rather thoroughly before any action is taken.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Recognizing the important statement the hon. gentleman made on behalf of Canada, and awaiting the return of the President of the Privy Council, who, I hope, will make a statement on motions at an early opportunity, perhaps the minister could clear up one or two points. Could he tell the House whether the failure of the oil producing nations to agree to an on going energy dialogue with the industrialized nations was in fact responsible for the low level of the offer by the industrialized nations on debt management and the common fund, the key issues at the conference, which in turn led to such a disappointing conclusion?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think the President of the Privy Council or Secretary of State for External Affairs would be in a better position to answer the hon. member's question next week. I had to leave before the conference finally wound up, and I am not clear as to the precise problem which developed with respect to the oil consultation proposal. I very much regret that it was not possible for the conference to agree on such a proposal.
I should like also to take this opportunity of saying that I think Canada's position and Canada's offer were very well received by the group of 19, by the ldc's and by the OPEC nations, and in particular Canada's very forthcoming offer to write off something in the order of $250 million of debt.

June 3, 1977
Oral Questions FINANCE


GOVERNMENT ACTION TO PROTECT ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the continuing absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, perhaps I could pose my question concerning the state of the home electronics industry in Canada to the Minister of Finance. In light of the fact that the 1976 annual report of Electrohome, Limited showed that the company sustained an $8 million loss in 1976 and is in default under the terms of a debenture agreement, and in light of the fact that the number of production employees has declined from 1,200 in 1974 to 150 at the present time, what action, if any, does the government intend to take to stem the decline of Canada's home entertainment industry; and specifically may I ask the minister whether the statement by his parliamentary secretary on May 18 that "if they will make television sets for low prices in Asian countries, why cannot we have the benefit of those television sets provided we can get something in return, provided Canadians can find jobs worth $6, $7 and $8 an hour" means that the government has given up on maintaining a Canadian home electronics industry?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think the statement of the parliamentary secretary puts very aptly the challenge which not only the television receiver assembly industry but many other secondary manufacturing industries face in Canada. Indeed, it is because of competition from exterior sources that we have been so concerned about maintaining restraint on the increase in industrial costs in Canada. I know that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has been in close touch with the situation facing this particular industry. It does represent an area where there is very substantial foreign competition even at the levels of protection which exist at this time.
One remedy that has been suggested is further tariff protection, which I think has to be balanced against some of the objectives which we have for expanding Canadian export opportunities abroad. Having said that, I think the question might be better addressed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who has been in specific contact with the situation.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, may I just ask a supplementary question having to do with the specific company and the serious loss of jobs there, which are expected to decline by another third this summer. Are there any short-term actions which are going to be taken by the government in regard to the television industry in Canada, which is located largely within Electrohome, Limited? To the best of my knowledge there is no other company in Canada producing television sets. Does the government intend to take any specific action in the short term to save jobs in this industry?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to anticipate what the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce might want to say.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: 
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Two days ago there was an indication of some difficulty with respect to distribution. A question was raised concerning receipt of a press release issued by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand) and a subsequent indication by his parliamentary secretary that there must have been some difficulty in distribution. I undertook to look into the matter on behalf of hon. members and to indicate to the House what had appeared to take place from the point of view of our administrative responsibilities.
My information is that there was, as the parliamentary secretary indicated, some telephone contact with the postal services prior to the actual delivery. Our information is that that telephone contact was about ten minutes past 12 and that at about 25 minutes past 12 the material was delivered to the post office, and that during the following two hours the material was distributed to the post boxes. That is a little longer than it usually takes, which I think is explained by the fact that the distribution had to be made while part of the staff was on lunch hour. Those were the circumstances, but even so distribution was not very far from the normal arrangements for distributing material of this sort in the way it was asked to be distributed.
Members may also have noted yesterday and today some delay and one or two technical problems in regard to Hansard. There has been a difficulty with the computerized operation of
June 3, 1977

the Hansard services. The difficulty has been located and we are attempting to remedy it, but I have to ask the indulgence of hon. members in bearing with us in yesterday's and today's late delivery of Hansard. We are checking especially carefully for any technical errors. We have spotted one or two and are correcting them as quickly as possible.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table a reference to the Administrator under the Anti-Inflation Act of a collective agreement made by 97 member cartage companies who bargain in association through Transport Labour Relations.


DOMINION DAY
John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, in April the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced the government's intention to co-ordinate appropriate and festive activities to celebrate and honour Canada's federal national holiday on July 1. The decision was prompted by the growing number of expressions of national unity from groups and associations across the country and the recognition of the impressive number of July 1 projects and activities being initiated by communities across Canada.

We all remember that in 1967, millions of Canadians joined together to reaffirm their pride in their country. Since that time, the federal government's July 1st program has been centered in Ottawa with regional activities being left to the initiative of local groups and municipalities. I want to ensure that the momentum which began in 1967 is revived and maintained in future years. We hope to provide a permanent framework for a well-structured, decentralized national program within which groups and individuals across Canada may express, in their own way, their pride and belief in Canada. [English]
To date over 1,000 communities have begun preparations for activities which will reflect their recognition and pride in Canada. A national community program is providing all the planning assistance possible to these communities through consultation, promotional support and co-ordination. With the government's co-operation, each activity will be the communi-
Dominion Day Celebrations
ty's expression of national pride. Viewed together, these initiatives will express the diversity that makes Canada so unique.
We are working in close co-operation with the Council of Canadian Unity, a national association which has organized Canada Week since 1969. When Canada Week was launched in 1969, some 50 Canadian communities participated. So far this year, 1,000 communities have initiated their own special projects.
We have also asked the private sector to participate in this national effort. The response to that has been enthusiastic. Several major companies have come forward with offers to help promote the July 1 celebrations across Canada, and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce has made available its regional offices to assist in the co-ordination of the activities being undertaken.
We have also established two specific programs to support our national effort.

A major campaign will be launched over Canadian radio and television expressing the government's conviction that Canada Day is a day for celebration and pride. The theme of the English campaign is "Canada, I want to shake your hand" and the French theme is "Le Canada, un beau pays, un pays libre". The two themes are appropriate ways of reaffirming the country's size, beauty, and the freedom which Canada allows for self-expression, growth, and diversity.

We will also assist Canadian celebrities to travel throughout the country with their families to participate in regional events and meet as many community residents as possible. Many well-known Canadians have expressed an interest in participating in this program. Within a few days I should be able to announce a list of their names.

On July 1, the CBC will carry a three hour special television spectacular, in English and French, featuring local and national celebrities in a national view of the Canadian Mosaic. Private network tie-ins will expand the viewing audience to an estimated 6 million people.

While we are placing our major emphasis on our national celebration from coast to coast, Ottawa will be the site of a special day of festivities, including a parade of original floats depicting Canada's history and diversity. The trooping of colours will be presented the morning of July 1, and beginning at 1 p.m. Ottawa will celebrate the Great Canadian Birthday Party, a giant five-hour festival of folk dancing, music, sports, children's activities and contests. The Great Canadian Birthday Party is being organized by a volunteer citizen's committee with our support and assistance. I know members of parliament from the Ottawa area are vitally interested in it.
The climax to the Ottawa festivities will be a three-hour spectacular on Parliament Hill featuring English and French

June 3, 1977
Dominion Day Celebrations
performers and celebrities from across the country. In keeping with the objective to decentralize the Canada Day celebration, live performances from across the country will be included by satellite in the CBC's three-hour special. The Ottawa Spectacular will be tied in to the CBC television program so that Canadians across the country will be able to enjoy it. A giant fireworks display will follow the Parliament Hill program, bringing to an end what promises to be a most exciting celebration of Canada's federal national holiday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, members of my party are happy to celebrate the anniversary on July 1. I am anxious to respond without a series of platitudes because these festive occasions bring on the worst in public speaking. I am not accusing the minister. As a matter of fact, I thought his statement was rather happily spared in this regard. I am anxious to avoid the platitudes, the hucksterism and the boosterism. What we want is a happy birthday shared by as many Canadians as possible. I have to be thankful for what we have in our common citizenship.
1 do not think we should be disturbed about the preoccupation of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) concerning the heritage aspects of what others have struggled to give us to celebrate. The technology of television will mean Canadians will celebrate in their own way. The smaller places in Canada to which the minister referred will be drawn together because of the focal point of the nation's capital. I am anxious to see whether the partnership of Radio Canada and the CBC will work out arrangements to celebrate this day together. It would be an interesting test if all Canadians could see the same things on July 1.
I do not know what it is about the English Canadian psyche which makes them rather reluctant to get emotional about celebrating patriotic events. I am sure it is part of our psyche. Every once in a while we surprise ourselves. We did on July 1, 1967. Suddenly, English Canadians found they were able to be moved by exemplifications of our nation and found themselves caught up on Parliament Hill in what was a very moving and emotional experience. It was an experience which I will never forget because it was a family day. I hope family days will prevail across the country.
A wise Canadian of international recognition from Toronto, Northrop Frye, told us about this endless search in which Canadians are engaged. Occasionally we seem to have the elusive thing we seek. I must agree with what Northrop Frye said, that if we stop the search and look around, we will find the Canada we have. I hope that will be part of our celebration.
Perhaps I will be categorized as being unspirited arid Scrooge-like. I do not intend that at all. I hope the birthday will be a tremendous success. We have to face the fact that half the people who have not worked on this July 1 celebration are the young. This is not the time to mention what we are going to do about this. It will be a concern of every one of us as we set off the fireworks and troop the colours. We have to

remember that too many young Canadians may be wondering what it is they have to celebrate.
I am looking at an hon. friend across the floor, who will remain unidentified. As Canadians celebrate their birthday, they might recall that years ago it was Her Majesty the Queen who commented upon patriotism in Quebec. I may be considered inelegant because I am going to attempt to paraphrase what the Queen said, which is probably inappropriate. In Quebec, the Queen said that patriotism may take on different dimensions and we should not be surprised if everyone does not have a common expression of patriotism. I thought that was a wise observation. People make lists about the way other people celebrate their citizenship. We do not need any lists, and we do not need any Brownie points for our mutual feeling in regard to our country. It is divisive if we watch others celebrating our national holiday.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party I should like to express our appreciation of the efforts which are being made for a great celebration on our one hundred and tenth birthday on July 1. It is true that there are times when celebrations and ceremonies can be so much window-dressing. There are times when patriotism is known to be a refuge for certain kinds of persons. However, it is also true that there are occasions when celebrations, ceremonies and expressions of patriotism do something for people such as those who comprise this country.
There is no question but that the efforts that were put into celebrating our centennial ten years ago gave us a lift. Sometimes we are a little unhappy that that experience seemed to die down a bit. Now that we are at the point of celebrating 110 years in the life of this country, I think it is worth while that it be done in the thorough way that has been announced by the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts).
I am sure that we all approve of the two-faceted approach, namely, that celebrations are to take place all over the country in hundreds of different communities, and also that there will be a main, outstanding celebration here in the nation's capital. I note that the Secretary of State indicated certain plans for the celebrations on that day. I particularly support the suggestion of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) that an effort be made to see that it is a family day. Not only are we a Canadian family, but we are made up of our own families.
It is appropriate that the performers who take part that day in the main represent the two principal groups in this country, French-speaking and English-speaking. However, I would like to suggest, if it is not too late, that the program might also include performers who represent other groups in this country. There are millions of Canadians who are neither Frenchspeaking nor English-speaking in their origin. They should be represented as well, and let us also remember the natives who are descended from those who were here before any of us came. It strikes me it would be a more Canadian program if this mosaic approach were included in that ceremony. I am
June 3, 1977

delighted to see the Secretary of State nodding his head vertically as I make that suggestion.
One other question does get mention from time to time in this connection. I note what the hon. member for Fundy-Royal said about it. May I say in passing that the issue that arises when we seem to be going to celebrate Canada Day and Dominion Day on the same day could be resolved very easily if the government would just call Bill C-30. That bill provides for the establishment of Heritage Day. It also provides for changing the name of July 1 officially from Dominion Day to Canada Day. Two or three members of the Progressive Conservative party have presented their own bills calling for that change. There is a good deal of support for the idea around this House. Surely in the days between now and July 1 that problem could be solved in that way.
Like the hon. member for Fundy-Royal, I feel this is a celebration which should be enjoyed for its own sake. We should be grateful for the things that are part of our heritage. However, I cannot help but feel that a way to make Canadians even more proud to be part of this country is to put much more effort into solving some of the problems that face us at this time.
The previous speaker referred to the unemployed in our midst, particularly the large number of young people who are unemployed and who will have some doubts about their appreciation of their heritage. A way to make sure that Canadians will forever be proud to be Canadians and want to celebrate our birthdays year after year is to deal with problems like unemployment, urban renewal, regional disparities, housing and all those things that are realities in our life.
For the older people there is the whole question of improving the security that we provide for them, as well as providing those who are working with a guarantee that as they get older their security will be enhanced. Obviously, when I get into these few headings I could make full-dress speech on the things that are of concern to me. However, I am satisfied just to mention them at this time. I am glad to see the Secretary of State nodding his head up and down. I trust this means he agrees that the best way to make sure we will celebrate our birthdays with enthusiasm, not just with palaver and ceremony, is by making Canada the kind of place in which we are not only proud to live but in which there is security and freedom as well as the opportunity for fulfilment for all our people.
We are happy to join with other members of the House in expressing our appreciation of the efforts being made to provide a real "bang-up" celebration on July 1 when Canada will be 110 years old.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, as a French-speaking Canadian, I should like to make a few remarks about the statement of the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts). First of all, I want to thank him for having sent me fairly early a copy of this statement. I would not like my remarks to sound too bitter, but I do feel they must be made if we want certain things that are going on to change. I find it
Dominion Day Celebrations
most unfortunate that the French version I received was written in very poor French; the text was full of mistakes, both spelling and syntax, when Parliament has in fact excellent translators, who do terrific work. One need but read Hansard to realize how true what I am saying is. That such a text should have been received from a minister, and more, the Secretary of State for Canada, is unforgivable. I therefore trust that he will attend to that inexcusable anomaly on his part, no malice intended. Once again, I feel things must be brought out into the open if improvements are to be made.
The Social Credit Party of Canada supports the idea of a big celebration for Canada. It will be and must be Canada's day. I insist on this because in these days we must of necessity be proud of the fact that our country bears the name of Canada. So, the name must be repeated very often and I trust that celebration will truly be that of the whole of Canada, from the Pacific to the Atlantic.
We deplore, Mr. Speaker, that the Secretary of State and thus the government, and perhaps also Parliament, have as usual once again waited till the fire is roaring before calling firemen. For 10 years now we have been telling this government that Canada is in bad shape, that the provinces are dissatisfied, that Quebecers are beginning to be fed up with what is going on, that the government is sitting by while the economic and social situation is getting ever more rotten to such an extent that there are now over one million unemployed people in our beautiful and great country, when there is so much to do and all those energies that could be used.
In his statement, the Secretary of State has mentioned that prominent people would travel throughout Canada. He told us a few minutes ago that in the next few days he will announce who those people will be. I think it would be normal that travel expenses be paid not only for prominent people-who could afford to pay their own way-but also for little people, unemployed people and Quebecers who do not know much about Canada. They should be given a chance to travel throughout Canada. It would serve our country very well if more Quebecers could visit the other provinces. This is a suggestion which, I hope, will be considered.
In 1967, there was a great boom for the centenary of Confederation. Then everything was dropped or nearly so because, as mentioned by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) last April, separatism in Quebec is dead indeed. At that time, the Prime Minister thought it was over. By the way, I would like to draw the attention of the Secretary of State to a situation I witnessed on Monday, May 30, in my riding on the occasion of the launching of a book to celebrate the third centenary of a municipality along the St. Lawrence River. The person in charge of the press conference criticized us because the federal government had refused to help Financially in the preparations for this event. And of course, as a member of Parliament and as a Canadian, I reacted. I was not very happy to hear that the organizers of the festivities had presented a project under the Canada Works program to try to organize something good and that the project had been turned down. Mr. Speaker, you imagine that a member of parliament who

June 3, 1977
Order Paper Questions
has a heart and whose blood boils in his veins, would propose to bring this to the attention of the authorities at the first opportunity. This is what I am doing, and I would ask the Secretary of State to remember this, because a tricentennial does not happen every day. So there ought to be a policy across Canada to help celebrate those days in all provinces of the country.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister stated that separatism was dead in Quebec. I think he must have found on November 15 that his prediction did not quite reflect reality, but something must be done to solve the problem. We must take action, and in taking action, we must do something which will show all Canadians, in any province, that Canada is governed by a Parliament and a government which responds to the needs of all Canadians and want to give all Canadians an equal opportunity to share the wealth and revenues of the country.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I would say to Parliament and to the government that something has to be done most urgently. I want also to stress the fact that our confidence in the present constitution, as well as that of Canadians at large, will erode progressively. It is urgent that we work out a new one and that we start right now to prepare it so that Canada Day in 1978 be the most beautiful event that has ever occurred in our country. We will thus realize that there are people in Canada who really want to work together, who understand each other whatever the language and who want to make Canada the most beautiful country in the North American continent.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 2,159, 2,172, 2,331, 2,332, 2,354, 2,393 and 2,477.


Mr. Stevens: As of December 31 (a) 1968 (b) 1976, what was the number of federal employees engaged to check railroad equipment for safety?


Otto Emil Lang: In so far as the
Canadian Transport Commission is concerned: On December 31, 1968 and December 31, 1976, the number of employees of the Railway Transport Committee engaged in the checking of railroad locomotives and cars for safety was 17.


Mr. Stevens: As of December 31 (a) 1968 (b) 1976, what was the number of federal employees engaged to check the safety of food and drugs?


Ralph Goodale: In so far as Agriculture Canada is concerned, the answer is: (a) 981; (b) 1,391. Departmental personnel devote only a portion of their time in the checking of the safety of food and drugs.
In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned: (a) 150; (b) 225.


Mr. Stevens: As of December 31 (a) 1968 (b) 1976, how many federal employees were charged with policy-making, or the interpretation of policies, relating to animal and plant health?


Ralph Goodale: In so far as Agriculture Canada is concerned: (a) 19; (b) 20.
In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned: (a) 10; (b) 7.
Note: The formerly decentralized Animal Resource facilities were centralized under the Finance and Administration Directorate, Health Protection Branch, in 1974. This centralization resulted in a reduction in manpower required between 1968 and 1976.


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


Ralph Goodale: In so far as Agriculture Canada is concerned, the answer is: (a) 19; (b) 20. Departmental personnel devote only a portion of their time in the policy-making, or interpretation of policies, regulating the safety of food and drugs.
In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned: (a) 17; (b) 20.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	During (a) January (b) February (c) March 1976, what percentage of the total number of vessels calling at the Port of (i) Quebec (ii) Trois-Rivieres (iii) Montreal, to load or discharge cargo, were tankers?
2.	How many square feet of National Harbours Board shedded area is currently available at (a) Montreal (b) Quebec (c) Halifax (d) Saint John?
June 3, 1977

3.	For the year (a) 1975 (b) 1976, what was the total volume of general cargo shipped over piers associated with the sheds, excluding facilities used primarily for container handling?


Otto Emil Lang: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1.
(a)	(b)	(C)January	February	March1976	1976	1976(i)	Quebec	50 per cent	52 per cent	48 per cent(ii)	Trois-Rivieres	30 per cent	50 per cent	18 per cent(iii)	Montreal	32 per cent	34 per cent	30 per cent2.	(a) Montreal, 2,870,454 square feet; (b) Quebec, 599,300 square feet; (c) Halifax, 760,604 square feet; (d) Saint John, 813,665 square feet.
3.
	(a)	(b)
	1975	1976
	(Tons)	(Tons)
Montreal	1,716,772	1,597,330Quebec	1,800,012	2,269,728Halifax	455,456	387,382Saint John	1,012,314	1,016,990


Mr. O'Sullivan: 1.	How many employees of Air Canada have been transferred from the Province of Quebec to postings outside the province, either in Canada or elsewhere, in (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) the first three months of 1977?
2.	(a) How many tranfers were at the request of the employee and how many were granted (b) how many resulted in the employee being transferred at an occupational and/or salary level equal to, or lower than that enjoyed in the Province of Quebec?


Otto Emil Lang: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1 and 2. Air Canada's records do not contain this information in the form in which it has been requested. As a result, it would take an inordinate amount of clerical time and cost to search for and obtain the information.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the Minister of Exernal Affairs aware that an Iranian citizen, Mr. Mamhoud Kazen, on a one month visit to Canada in August 1976, abducted his eleven year old daughter Vicki, from the home of the child's mother in Canada and that the child was in custody of the mother under Canadian law as a result of divorce proceedings some years ago?
2.	Has the government taken any steps on the matter and, if so, of what nature?
3.	Were representations made to the government of Iran and, if so (a) on what date (b) in what nature (c) by whom?
Order Paper Questions
4.	Is the child a Canadian citizen under Canadian law and, if so, what further steps will the government take in an attempt to have her returned to her mother in Canada?
5.	Is the government aware of a court order which gave Mr. Kazen the right to visit his daughter in Canada on the condition his passport be surrendered to a lawyer upon arrival and, if so, for what reason were steps not taken to enforce this court order by any Canadian official?


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Yes, although we understand the father's surname is spelled Kazem.
2.	Since the government learned of Victoria's removal from Canada to Iran by her father contrary to an Ontario Court Order, Canadian officials have discussed the matter with the mother and with Mr. Kazem on a number of occasions, with a view to facilitating a negotiated settlement between the mother and father, and the return of Victoria to her family in Canada. Full details of the case were transmitted to the Canadian Embassy in Tehran which has made representations to the authorities in Iran. In addition, the matter has been raised with the Iranian Ambassador to Canada. Most recently, on March 9, at the request of the Department of External Affairs, consultations were held between Mrs. Starr, her lawyer and officials of that Department. Proposals for new custody arrangements were formulated by Mrs. Starr and forwarded to Iran for transmission to Mr. Kazem. Further discussions took place between Mr. Kazem and the Canadian Embassy. Subsequently, the Department received detailed reports from the Embassy which set out Mr. Kazem's counter proposals, and these have been passed to Mrs. Starr and her lawyer.
3.	Yes. (a) From the outset at the time in August, 1976 that Victoria and her father arrived in Tehran, up to the present time, a number of discussions have taken place with the Iranian authorities, and with the father and mother, (b) On August 29, 1976 the then Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Hon. Allan J. MacEachen, wrote to the Iranian Ambassador to Ottawa. Subsequently, officials of the Canadian Embassy in Tehran have on numerous occasions discussed the matter with Mr. Kazem and his lawyer, with Mrs. Starr's Iranian lawyer, with officials of the Iranian Foreign Ministry and with Iranian Immigration authorities, (c) As in (b).
4.	Yes. However it is understood that Victoria is also a citizen of Iran. Under Iranian laws the Ontario custody order has no force and effect in that country. Mrs. Starr has obtained advice on recourses available under the laws of Iran. The Government of Iran has taken the position that Victoria is an Iranian citizen, legally resident in that country and subject to the laws of Iran. In these circumstances, and in the absence of any agreement between Canada and Iran for the mutual enforcement of custody orders, it is not clear what further remedies may be available to Mrs. Starr in Iran. While the Government of Canada will continue to assist in any way possible in Mrs. Starr's efforts to have Victoria re-united with her family, prospects do not seem encouraging unless the father and mother can come to some understanding.
5.	Yes. The Government was not, however, aware of the Ontario Surrogate Court Order until after Victoria had been taken out of the country.

June 3, 1977
Scientific Activities of Government


Ralph Goodale: If question No. 775 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately. I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	With reference to the heading Manpower Distribution in the Post Office Department annual reports, for each category, what are the figures for (a) Letter Carriers' Union of Canada (b) Canadian Union of Postal Works (c) Association of Postal Officers of Canada (d) Canadian Postmasters Association (e) Public Service Alliance of Canada (i) Railway Mail Clerks (ii) General Labour Trades (iii) other trade groups (0 other specific groups of organized employees (g) out of scope management (h) all other groups for each fiscal year from 1970-71 to the present?
2.	For the same fiscal years, in each category of Manpower Distribution, what were (a) the aggregate salaries and wages (b) the (i) names (ii) locations (iii) salaries (iv) positions of all employees earning $20,000 per year or more?
Return tabled.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, June 2, 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 third time and do pass.
Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, last night at the time of adjournment I was discussing Bill C-26, and particularly the impact which it will have on the granting councils and university research. I gave some indication of what I felt lay ahead, some of the directions which I felt were implicit within the bill. I concluded my remarks last night by suggesting that I feel that the bill itself is timely and that it would be a vehicle for some important evolutionary changes within the functioning of the granting council system-a system which, I might add, historically has served this country extremely well.
Now I would like to look at another part of the framework of the granting councils which exists outside granting councils itself but which I have discussed both in committee and on second reading. I am referring, of course, to the role of the

Inter-Council Co-ordinating Committee. This committee, as I indicated on second reading, will report to me. It will consist of the Secretary of MOSST, as chairman, and the heads of the three councils. It will be the forum for discussions among the councils and between the councils and the government. It will have as a prime function the job of co-ordinating the policies, programs and practices of the councils, to see that, on the one hand, they do reflect national objectives and priorities, and on the other that they make sense from the point of view of the universities for the development of university research across the range of disciplines. The councils have, of course, final responsibility for shaping their own objectives and supporting policies and programs. This is quite clear. The ICCC will be the sounding-board for discussing their completeness and consistency and their total impact on the university research community. This will be a new and significant element in the federal granting picture.
The ICCC will have other functions. It will advise on the allocation of funds among the councils; it will take an active role to ensure that the needs of interdisciplinary research, both within councils and crossing the boundaries of both disciplines and councils, are met; it will try to see that all disciplines are covered. The committee can invite others to its meetings from both outside and inside the government. As the new councils become established, I can see that the ICCC will be a valuable forum for looking at the interaction and balance among departmental programs of university support and council programs, for example, those of agriculture and the new natural sciences and engineering research council. There has been criticism that the ICCC is not in the bill and, without statutory authority, will lack muscle. In my view that is not so. Its authority derives essentially from the intention the government has for it, its membership and its role. Its scope and action remain flexible and, as with the bill, the concept behind its creation is evolutionary change.
I have laid emphasis on the need for clearer objectives for research support by both the councils and the universities themselves. I noted in my second reading statement the kinds of objectives, in broad terms, the councils might be guided by. I would like briefly to elaborate on certain of these, because I would like the House to appreciate the longer term implications of this bill and the importance of what will be done here today in bringing this bill a step closer to final approval. I would also like to feel I have the support of the House for the thoughts I am putting forward.
The goal of all university research must continue to be excellence assessed by the peer review system, whether it is in unravelling the structure of an enzyme or in developing new techniques for extracting oil from tar sands. I have said, however, that the era of all university research being motivated solely by the desire to expand the frontiers of knowledge is passing. Research in the universities is now multifaceted, and increasingly the stimulus for the research will be coming from outside the university. But we cannot expect, as a nation, that university research will be able to contribute fully to national
June 3, 1977

issues if we do not define what the research objectives are with respect to those issues and what opportunities there are for university scientists and scholars to get involved.
The challenge to the new councils is to develop policies and mechanisms which will encourage the university research community to respond. The problems posed to the community should not only be those of direct concern to governments and industry, as I indicated last night, but should also cover the issues confronting Canadian society in general. The broad objectives or guidelines I described last December provide a context for the definition of these research objectives. To speak in particular of two of them, I think the councils must consider a regional balance of scientific capability and the support of interdisciplinary research in setting out and implementing their objectives. The objective of achieving a regional balance should not be interpreted as meaning that the government wants to see a regional balance within each discipline. This would be unreasonable; we simply do not have the resources. What is intended is a fair distribution of centres of specialization in different disciplines or groups of disciplines across the country. Thus, we should reinforce a regional capability which has grown out of the presence of an outstanding scientist or scholar or a special competence related to the geographic, economic or social conditions of the region.
There will be difficult decisions for the councils here on what to support, and where. The appropriate marshalling of talent and resources in centres of specialization will depend on a detailed knowledge of the state of the art in various fields of research and an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the universities, including an awareness of the attitudes to research of the university administrations. The councils must begin to obtain this information if they do not already have it.
The councils should also, I believe, give serious thought to how interdisciplinary research is best supported and carried out. Some success has been achieved by the present councils in supporting scientists and scholars from different disciplines working together in various university institutes which cut across traditional departmental lines. From my own observations, I know, however, that many of these efforts have been tentative and have failed to develop the right kind of institutional mechanism or reward systems which would ensure continuing success. There are obstacles in the way of establishing the mutual respect necessary for good teamwork. These will have to be overcome if the optimum level of research capability in Canada is to be achieved. Future progress in addressing national problem areas will be based on the sharing of knowledge among disciplines, as will the general advance of knowledge, and new policies and programs from the councils will be needed. It is especially in these areas that bright, young scientists would be able to pursue research careers.
It is not difficult to think of areas of national concern where research is essential. The efficient development of our agricultural and food technologies, the management-including both exploitation and protection-of our marine resources, the identification of poisons in our atmosphere and water affecting the
Scientific Activities of Government health of Canadian society, and the increasing concentration of Canadians in a few urban centres are examples. The councils, bearing in mind provincial and regional priorities, will have the task of translating national issues into research objectives.
What will these research objectives look like, and how will they be arrived at? I am not sure I can answer this question with any assurance. This will be a task for the councils. It has not been done to any extent before, but what is clear to me is that it will require leadership from the councils to see it through. The process of setting these objectives must, I think, have the involvement and support of the scientific and scholarly communities. Without the backing of the community, the response to such new objectives is not likely to be of high quality or quantity. The challenge, as I say, will be for the councils to come up with policies and programs which strike the right note. I would add that universities themselves may also find their research policies have to be re-examined in light of the changing directions of council programs.
Finally, I do not want to leave the impression that the councils will be devoting all their resources to specific issues. The support of free inquiry has a firm place in council objectives and, as I emphasized, will continue to have that place. Basic research has produced much of the knowledge underlying our present prosperity. Canada will go on contributing to that body of knowledge which is the common property of all mankind. To be a parasite on this stock of knowledge is not the government's policy. Our contribution has been distinguished in the past and I hope it will be even more distinguished in the future.
I have not spoken today about the other aspects of the bill. They were discussed previously and it was agreed in the committee that they would be useful and worth-while changes. I would simply like to conclude my remarks by reiterating my thanks to all hon. members of the House who participated in the discussion on this bill. I would cite two in particular, the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling) and the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Maine) who took a very particular interest in this bill at second reading, through the committee stage and on to third reading. I am very grateful to them and the other members of the committee who participated in the debate on this bill.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, there are a few remarks I would like to make in this third reading debate. I hope to conclude by one o'clock. The concerns I expressed about Bill C-26 at second reading are in the main still with me. At the time of the second reading debate I said I believed that by putting in place an additional layer of bureaucracy, the net amount of money available for actual research would be less. Given the illusory position of the government with regard to reducing the cost of administration, and given the constraints placed on total budget estimates, we can only conclude that there will be, by the mechanism of this bill, less money available for actual research, where the real work is done. However, as the minister has said, some of this

June 3, 1977
Scientific Activities of Government may be redressed by re-examination by the university community of the projects on which they are working.
Further, I was somewhat concerned about the release on April 26 by the minister regarding the contracting out of scientific requirements to the private sector. In effect, that is merely a reshuffling of the deck. The existing policies of the government for industrial research are, in real terms, available to only 5 per cent of Canadian industry, and they really should be oriented to 95 per cent. Only about 1,550 Canadian firms are capable of supporting in-house research and development. Another 5,000 Canadian firms are capable of purchasing research from private or provincial research foundations. The balance of about 24,600 Canadian firms can neither support in-house research nor purchase research on new products from private or provincial research foundations. The basic problem is that the government has never committed itself to the establishment of a strong secondary industrial base in Canada. I see little, if anything, in this legislation to change that.
Elowever, it is not our purpose to frustrate this legislation on that point. We do not intend to prolong the debate on that point. We will pursue it through other legislation to try to effect a change. In his book "The Economics of Industrial Innovation" published in 1974, Professor Charles Freeman said the following:
No amount of improvement in education and quality of labour force, no greater efforts by the mass media, no economies of scale or structural changes, no improvements in management, or in government administration could in themselves ultimately transcend the technical limitations of candle power as a means of illumination, wind as a source of energy, or iron as an engineering material, or of horses as a means of transport. Without technical innovation, economic progress would cease in the long run and in this sense we are justified in regarding it as primary, although operating in close association with other factors.
The very basis of a manufacturing industry is the systematic application of science and technology. Technology is the key to industrial progress and the key to competitive survival. Appropriate technology is the key to the development of small, regional enterprises in the less developed regions of this country. Much of that appropriate technology should be geared to the resource bases of those regions. Most of our legislation is geared to the development of economies of scale and of specialization agreements and exclusion from monopoly legislation in order to achieve those economies of scale.
The criticism I have is that the base is being continually narrowed and little attention is paid to broadening it. For this reason we were critical of the transfer of the patents and development branch to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, where we believe it will be lost in the bureaucratic jungle and will wither on the vine. We believe there is a mechanism whereby the patents and development branch could act as a clearing-house for patents from other jurisdictions that have run their course and become public property. We believe these should be made available to Canadian enterprises through the libraries of provincial research foundations. On some of this proven technology, new technology can be

built and innovative enterprises spawned that will provide the products of the future.
Canadian industry is suffering from extreme fragmentation such as the proceedings at GATT and the proposal to reduce tariffs generally by 50 per cent across the board, and further fragmentation will take place. I do not oppose tariff cuts if we put in place mechanisms to develop new and appropriate technology geared to regional requirements. Without this commitment, however, the immediate future for industry is indeed very bleak. The future for the 1.5 million unemployed and those entering the labour force in the years ahead looks dark. The possibility of a reversal in our balance of payments deficit is not promising.
Most of the points I have made could have been included in this bill, but they have not. The criticism I have of the bill is not so much on its content but that it could have gone further. It could have incorporated many of the points I have mentioned and taken a bold, new direction for Canada.
I do not view science and technology in any partisan way. It is too important to be pushed into the background by political bickering. The representatives from the scientific and academic community who visited our offices while this bill was being debated brought with them their sincere concern for the future of scientific research. They stressed very conclusively the need for continuous funding so that they could keep their research teams together. They talked sincerely and with conviction about their concerns for future scientific research and the need for long-term funding so that they could continue to attract the best students into this vital field. I can only say to them that we appreciate their concern and will endeavour to address ourselves to it in the months ahead.
I urge the scientific and academic community not to give up because of the constraints on spending we presently face. The short-term future may look bleak, but the long-term future is bright. To those who are being enticed away by promises of higher rewards we say, "Pause and think about the future of Canada". The difficulties we face will be of short duration in the span of an academic life, but we need the very best minds that are available if we are to achieve the promise of the future.
Mr. Speaker, the debate on this bill was spirited, and that is good. The committee hearings were extensive, and that is good. By agreement, we have decided that the bill should pass with a minimum of debate at this stage because of the earlier debate and the depth of the committee hearings. I believe that is good, too. Our desire now is to conclude third reading debate so that the bill may pass through the next stage and be proclaimed. Whatever benefits may accrue to the scientific and academic community should be made available to them as soon as possible.
One of my colleagues said that this bill is one whose time has passed. That is his opinion. An opinion does not have to be right or wrong in order to be valid; it need only be honest. That was his honest opinion and he was perfectly right to express it. That is the nature of debate; that is part of the function of parliament. We endeavour to improve legislation presented to
June 3, 1977

this House so that the final product will be useful and relevant to Canada. Although we have reservations about this bill which we have expressed in debate and in committee, only the passage of time will prove or disprove our reservations and concerns about the effectiveness of the legislation. I, personally, hope that the concerns and criticism 1 have expressed are wrong. I hope that whatever benefits may flow from this bill will give the direction so desperately needed in this field.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, may I say that we in this party look forward with anticipation to new initiatives that may be presented to this House to enhance and strengthen scientific research and technical innovation in Canada.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, we in this party have no desire to hold up this bill. Being our only speaker, I wonder, in view of the time, if I might call it one o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
. Mr. Goodale: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of the House to a change in the order of business for this afternoon. Earlier today we discussed moving on to Bill C-13, the legislation dealing with historic sites, after we had passed the legislation on scientific activities. There have been the usual discussions, and it has been agreed that instead of dealing with Bill C-13 next we will deal with Bill S-3, the legislation dealing with insurance companies. When we have finished with Bill S-3, we will go on with Bill C-13 and continue with the order of business as announced.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have taken notice, and there does not seem to be any disagreement. Therefore, we will proceed in that order. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
At 12.58 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the minister in whose name the bill stands cannot be present in the House this afternoon. Let me say, as I begin my comments, that I support the position the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) took on second reading. Juggling around with the granting mechanism and establishing new granting councils will not solve our difficulties in scientific research. The new granting body may employ more people than the old council, but that will do little good. After all, unless you make more money available for scientific and social research, cutting the pie up into smaller slices will not increase its over-all size.
Scientific Activities of Government
I was amazed, to say the least, at some of the things the minister said this morning. He said, for instance, that the government does not intend this country to be a parasite on other countries in the field of scientific research; that is not government policy. Also, he said Canada will do its share. That is precisely our position. In a study carried out for the Ministry of Science and Technology in 1975 it is stated:
-major capital stock of any industrially advanced nation is not its physical equipment but rather its body of scientific knowledge and the capacity of its population to use this knowledge.
According to Statistics Canada we are now turning out about 2,500 Doctors of Philosophy a year, the largest number ever. Again according to Statistics Canada it is unlikely, given the policies we have been following in the research field, that as many as half of their number will be able to find gainful employment. That is a disaster for the country and a tremendous waste of our human and financial resources.
What are the reasons for our deficiency in technological capability? It seems to me there are two: first, with the encouragement of the government and, indeed, of four governments since the Second World War, we have been too willing to import prefabricated, American technology. This is primarily the result of Canada having the highest dependence of any industrialized western nation upon foreign controls and ownership of its industry. As many scientific researchers have pointed out, in most multinational corporations the major research and development effort takes place in the country where the head office is located. Although subsidiaries do perform research and development work, a large portion of this work is adapted, consisting of taking products and processes designed by the parent company and adapting them to the Canadian situation and environment. Clearly, if Canada continues to depend upon the scientific and engineering skills of other countries the long-term consequences will be disastrous.
The minister said he did not want us to be parasites. But if he would look at the figures for research and development he would see how far we have fallen behind in recent years. Public support of research and development in Canadian industry, in government laboratories and in universities has been steadily falling off since 1969. In 1975, support of industrial research and development dropped to 87 per cent of the 1969 level. Support of government research and development fell to 83 per cent of the 1969 level, and of university research and development to 67 per cent of the level in 1969. Is it any wonder statements have recently been made by the Royal Society, by medical researchers, by the Chemical Institute and by virtually every scientific body in this country expressing alarm over the situation?
I suppose that because of the close relationship between the medical profession and the people they serve, it is the medical researchers who have been most successful in persuading the government to make up, at least partially, for the mistakes of recent years. These cutbacks, the scope of which I have indicated, were further aggravated by the termination of such programs as the Industrial Research and Development Incen-

June 3, 1977
Scientific Activities of Government
tives Act, by cutbacks in the program for the advancement of industrial technology and the elimination of the research granting activities of the Defence Research Board. In contrast, other advanced nations like the United States, Britain and France treated their research and development enterprises in 1974 either as well as they did in 1969 or better. The Royal Society commented in its statement last year that Canada appeared to be alone among the advanced nations in the attitude of its government toward research and development.
The second reason for technical weakness can be traced directly to our poor record of support for university basic research. A significant aspect of this neglect is the apparent deliberate attempt by the government to scuttle university research completely, as documented by the Royal Society in the statement to which I have referred. There has been a dramatic decline in the funding of basic research at Canadian universities. Funding by the National Research Council, in real dollars, in 1974 dropped to 60 per cent of the 1969 level, and by the Medical Research Council to about 80 per cent of the 1969 level. As I say, as a result of representations by medical researchers and others this situation has been rectified to the point at which this year we should be giving about the same amount to medical research as we did in 1969.
The proportion of the gross national product spent by the federal government on basic research through its two main funding agencies has been steadily decreasing since 1969. In that year it was a meagre .10 per cent; by 1969 it was .07 per cent. In contrast, Belgium spent .3 per cent; Germany .3 per cent; France .4 per cent; Japan .4 per cent, and the Netherlands .6 per cent. In other words, Canada spent about one-quarter of the average support level of those West European countries and Japan. We are talking, it should be remembered, about a country which until recently, at least, had one of the highest gross national products of any in the world.
In 1974, Canada's increase over the 1969 support level amounted to between 8 per cent and 10 per cent, whereas in West Germany it was 150 per cent, in France 100 per cent, and in the U.S.A. 50 per cent. In the United Kingdom, which we know to have been suffering serious economic difficulties, the increase was 60 per cent. Unlike Canada, these countries clearly recognize that basic research capability provides the underpinning for future technological development, resulting in a strong secondary manufacturing section with its high growth of employment opportunities.
We have seen a continuing decline in recent years in the percentage of our labour force engaged in manufacturing. We have increasingly become hewers of wood and drawers of water. This is a serious matter because there is evidence that the United States may be revising its strategy of allowing unimpeded export of expertise and know-how to Canada, or to other nations, for that matter.
In a paper to the congressional subcommittee on economic growth in 1975, Robert Gilpin, a Princeton economist, warned of the dangers to American leadership in science and technolo-

gy and to the American international market position. He said that if one is to acquire foreign technology, one must have technology with which to bargain and trade. If the United States government were to follow the advice of Mr. Gilpin, there is no country in the world which would be more adversely, indeed disastrously, affected than Canada since we depend almost exclusively upon the United States for industrial knowhow. To a tremendous extent this know-how is imported into Canada from the United States.
It seems to me that in our present weak position Canada has two choices. We can continue to plead for special status with the United States, or we can begin to move toward being technologically independent. To my mind there is no difficulty in choosing the better policy for Canada to follow. But if we are to follow the objective of becoming more technologically independent, we must recognize the necessity for a strong base for technology and then initiate a science policy which commits this country to the furtherance of this objective.
It seems to me very obvious from the figures that I have quoted, figures which have been made public through the work of all scientific organizations founded in various fields in Canada, that this government has not followed such a policy. Indeed, the government has an anti-science policy. It would be charitable to say that this can be ascribed to the lack of understanding of the value and role of science as a moulding force of society. If anyone feels that 1 am being too harsh when I say that, 1 would refer them to the view of a former minister of science and technology, the hon. member for Westmount (Mr. Drury), that all scientific organizations felt that way. Really, nothing has changed since that time.
The Senate committee headed by Senator Lamontagne which studied at great length and over several years scientific research made a number of interesting observations. In the second volume of its report it had this to say:
A second feature of basic science that justifies financial support is that it is not as pure as it is often alleged to be. Indeed it would be quite easy to show that many important innovations since the first industrial revolution have originated from basic research and scientific discoveries that were not at first viewed as having practical application. The financing of such research can thus be rationalized on the basis that basic science be considered as an overhead charge on applied science and R and D in general.
This government is taking exactly the opposite view. It has taken the view that we have a limited amount of money for scientific research; that therefore cutbacks will be made on pure science and basic research grants. There will be cutbacks in funds for universities and more money will be spent on the practical application of scientific research. As I say, this is the converse of the observation in the Lamontagne report. The Science Council, in their report, had this to say:
It is generally accepted that research is an indispensable element of a university for the development of both teacher and students. Thus Canadian education requires research in Canadian educational institutions. Research at the universities need not and should not be limited to basic research alone. Nevertheless, the search for new and deep understanding of the world which is inherent in basic research make it particularly important to higher education.
Clearly, the opportunity for original inquiry helps generate new knowledge, is an important adjunct of professional teaching and is central to the education of advanced students.
June 3, 1977

Today, a majority of new graduates in virtually every scientific discipline in Canada simply cannot find jobs in Canadian universities, in the government service or Canadian industry. The task force on research reported in Science Forum, in one of this year's issues:
-if the current policies and enrolment trends persist we must face the prospect of a period of 20 years during which few posts in research and teaching will be filled by young recruits. Thus the research work continues to be deprived of fresh talent, and would age rapidly (at an estimated rate of 0.8 years per annum). Continuing erosion will lead to a major crisis in the 1990s when the majority of the present researchers will be of retirement age without adequate replacement of their expertise being available f-om within the country.
That is what has been happening in this country, and we believe it ought not to happen, that it need not happen. 1 come back to what I said at the beginning, that the restructuring of the granting agencies will have very little effect on what we accomplish in the field of scientific research. The prime reason for our failures has been, is, and will continue to be, lack of adequate funding. We believe we must commit at least four-tenths of 1 per cent of our gross national product to scientific research. We agree that the agencies and the government organizations which are charged with approving scientific research projects and granting money should be simplified. This is why we support this bill as a first step. However, we believe that without a sharp increase in the amount of grants we will continue to fail, as we have been failing in the last ten or more years.
We believe that the agencies need to be charged with the responsibility of sponsoring more of what has been called, in the scientific community, mission-oriented research. This is research which may involve a considerable element of basic research but which nevertheless is directed toward a specific goal or mission. This type of research is most often conducted in a government or private research institute. Many countries, particularly France, West Germany and the Soviet Union, have promoted these research institutes with considerable success. We have experimented with this type of research organization in the establishment of Atomic Energy of Canada, Limited which was largely responsible for the basic research and development which led to the CANDU nuclear reactor which we claim is one of the best in the world. Unfortunately, there are a few other examples in Canada of this type of research organization which might best be called a research and development corporation.
We are facing a dilemma. On the one hand, there is a growing surplus of manpower in the science and engineering fields, with little indication of what we should do with these people; on the other hand, funding for research and development has steadily decreased in terms of constant dollars over the last ten years. Hence, fewer and fewer jobs are available for our graduates.
I am suggesting an institute for the establishment of a solar energy research and development Crown corporation. I understand the United States is in the process of establishing such an institute. Such an institute could not only conduct research
Scientific Activities of Government on solar heating and cooling of buildings, solar cells, solar fuels, etc., but could also co-ordinate all solar energy research activities in Canada. The world is crying for the use of solar energy. The industrialized countries, and particularly the underdeveloped countries, are not likely in the foreseeable future to have the funds for alternative energy sources or to have the funds to purchase oil, natural gas, coal or any of the other existing sources of energy.
Canada should take the lead in not only meeting its own needs in 10 or 20 years from now through the use of solar energy but in developing a basis for using solar energy in ways which could be exported to the benefit of Canadians and to the benefit of recipient countries. I am referring to a system for tapping the solar energy available. This is one example of the many we ought to be exploring and about which we have done virtually nothing.
As I have indicated, Canada ranks far behind other industrial countries in their percentage of gross national product devoted to research and development. When we look at applied research and development, largely carried out in industry, Canada ranks last out of eight industrial countries in the percentage of the research and development dollar devoted to industrial research. It was less than 40 per cent in 1972. Not only is the quality of research and development conducted by industry in Canada very poor, but also the quality appears to be poor. It has been discovered that of the 110 significant innovations in the world since World War II, which cover a wide range of science intensive industries including electronic components, pharmaceuticals, plastics, computers, etc., none was first developed in Canada. Although this study covers the period to 1970, recent data suggests that we have not been doing much better since then.
Compared to most other countries, industry in Canada provides a higher percentage of the funds for industrial research and development as compared to the United States, for example, where research and development is the most intense and industry provides a smaller proportion of the financing than in other countries. The government must participate with industries to share the financing of industrial research and development through direct grants and cost-sharing programs, particularly in industries which will help build a secondary manufacturing base and allow diversification from dependence on resource-based industries which we have had in recent years. The secondary manufacturing base in Canada has been deteriorating. The success of these shared ventures will depend on clearly identifying projects which are geared to the special needs of the Canadian market. That will not happen as long as this country continues to be dominated, particularly in the manufacturing sector of our economy, by the multinational companies.
The ability of this country to function as an independent nation will depend on our capacity to develop a strong secondary manufacturing industry based on products and ideas developed from a heavy investment in research and development. This must come from the government. It may be too old-fashioned to talk about Canadians being hewers of wood and

June 3, 1977
Insurance Companies
drawers of water. As one scientist said, the only thing that has changed has been to replace the axe by the chain-saw, and the pail by the water-pump.
In our view, we need a national science policy designed to promote scientific and technological innovations to meet the important economic, environmental and social challenges confronting us and to enhance our daily lives. To achieve this we need a government willing to commit a much greater percentage of our gross national product to basic applied research and development. We need research and development Crown corporations to help these national goals. We also need a firm commitment by the government that we are going to move to regain control of our industry in order to stimulate this applied research and development.
Science is too important to continue in the way we have. While we support the bill we have before us, we do not believe the government really means to do the kinds of things in the field of scientific policies which are required. We foresee much more trouble in the coming years than we have had in the last couple of years, with more unemployment and more difficulties for the thousands of graduates we have been turning out from our scientific institutions.


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


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


CANADIAN AND BRITISH INSURANCE COMPANIES ACT
Donald Stovel Macdonald: that Bill S-3, to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act and the Foreign Insurance Companies Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill relates to three types of companies-Canadian companies, Commonwealth companies, and insurance companies from other parts of the world. The main purpose of the bill is to revise the existing statutory rules concerning the valuation of the liabilities and assets of insurance companies and concerning the presentation of accounts. The objective of these changes is to have the financial accounts of insurance companies presented in a manner that will conform more closely to generally accepted accounting principles than has been the case in the past. These matters have been under intensive study for the past two or three years, stimulated by the accounting profession in Canada and in the United States and also by the Canadian Institute of Actuaries.
The problem of fair presentation of financial accounts of an insurance company is a difficult one. The valuation of a company's obligations involves elements of judgment relating to whether policies will give rise to claims in the future and

when these claims will arise. On the assets side, it is necessary to form a judgment concerning the earning power of the existing assets portfolio and whether this portfolio, together with future investment income and future premium payments, will produce the right amounts of money at the right time to pay future claims and expenses. Thus, the valuation of the liabilities and the valuation of assets for an insurance company are closely linked.
A further difficult problem relates to the fact that administrative expenses in connection with the issuance of insurance policies are heavily concentrated at the outset of the policy. It has been traditional in the insurance industry to treat these acquisition expenses as an outright expense as they are incurred. However, standard accounting practice would, instead, spread the impact of the heavy acquisition expense over a period of years rather than concentrate it at the outset. The traditional practice has been conservative in the sense that a company is forced to have sufficient resources to carry this initial expense while it waits for recovery of the expense from future premiums. On the other hand, the standard accounting approach gives, perhaps, a better ongoing assessment of the financial results of a company's operation.
In proposing these amendments, the government recognizes that it is not only desirable to revise and improve the presentation of financial accounts of insurance companies but that it is also desirable to retain sufficient safeguards to protect the solvency of such companies. It is also considered desirable to arrive at one statement form for use by supervisory agencies, as well as for presentation to shareholders, policyholders and the public, if this can be achieved. We recognize, too, that changes from the traditional method of presentation of accounts to methods that are more closely in line with generally accepted accounting principles will take some time. Further thought and development of ideas are certain to take place. The existing bill would amend the present legislative structure in order to permit a revised presentation of accounts and also contemplates some flexibility to take into account results of future and ongoing discussions among the interested parties.
With respect to liabilities, the bill proposes considerable changes from existing requirements. There will be much more responsibility placed upon the actuary of a life insurance company to choose appropriate valuation bases and valuation methods. There will be broader scope than at present to spread the impact of acquisition expenses over the premium-paying period of the policy, thus producing a better presentation of the profit or loss of a company from year to year.
With respect to regulatory control, the bill proposes that the Superintendent of Insurance shall have final control to reject valuation bases that he thinks are inappropriate, and the bill also proposes a maximum limit on the deferral of acquisition expenses.
With respect to assets, the bill proposes that a company be able to present its assets at the book values, less an investment valuation reserve to be determined by regulation. The book
June 3, 1977

values, in general, will be defined at the amortized values for redeemable securities, and the outstanding balances for mortgage loans. For stocks, the book values would be the purchase price together with a special adjustment applied to the whole portfolio, to recognize some portion of realized and unrealized capital gains and losses. Real estate would have a book value equal to the purchase price.
It is proposed to fix the investment valuation reserve by regulation since there is considerable ongoing discussion in the accounting and actuarial professions concerning appropriate methods to value assets for insurance companies. There will likely be further developments in this field from time to time in the future. We would wish, however, to discuss these proposals with the industry before final decision. Draft proposals have been distributed.
For property and casualty insurance companies, although much of the above applies, the bill proposes a change in the minimum capital and surplus requirements now prescribed for this type of company. These changes should help to improve the capacity of existing insurance companies to serve the Canadian market but without any dangerous weakening of solvency standards.
One change of interest is that the bill proposes a change in the definition of "British company" in order to extend this definition to include organizations such as Lloyd's of London. At present, Lloyd's is exempt from the application of the insurance legislation since it is not a "corporation" and the act presently deals only with British organizations that are corporations. Lloyd's has expressed some interest in being registered under federal legislation. In the past, this has not been possible since Lloyd's could not find a way to deposit assets in Canada to cover their liabilities in Canada, as is required of other non-resident insurers. It now appears, however, that Lloyd's has made an arrangement to deposit assets in Canada and, consequently, it seems possible to work out arrangements to give them registered status.
However, some further discussions are needed since the Lloyd's organization has characteristics that are not found in ordinary insurance companies. Consequently, the bill proposes that this change come into force only on proclamation. It also proposes that authority be given to the Superintendent of Insurance to work out special arrangements to meet the special nature of the Lloyd's organization, all within the concept of maintaining assets in Canada to cover the liabilities here.
The bill proposes a modest increase in corporate powers of insurance companies to enable them to transact ancillary business directly, rather than only through subsidiaries as at present. Some additional flexibility will be given to insurance companies to permit them to issue capital stock in classes or series of shares and to subdivide the par value of shares. In this connection I might mention that it is the intention to propose a general revision of the corporate clauses of the insurance legislation as soon as this can be done. In the circumstances now facing us, however, this further revision will probably await completion of the studies of the Bank Act and, perhaps, legislation relating to other financial institutions.
Insurance Companies
The bill proposes a number of changes with respect to investment powers. The power to invest in government securities other than those of governments in Canada will be restricted to government securities of countries where a Canadian insurance company is doing business, but the bill proposes that the government bonds of other countries may be authorized by regulation.
Since the bill received first reading in this House, the question of depositing foreign pay securities to cover Canadian liabilities has assumed greater importance. Because of certain accounting rules adopted in the United States a number of companies from that country have indicated a desire to deposit U.S. dollar securities in Canada to cover some or all of their liabilities here. It seems necessary, therefore, to have broader control over this matter than was originally thought necessary. Accordingly, it is proposed to amend the bill to make clear that a non-resident company may deposit or rest in trust securities not payable in Canadian dollars only with the consent of the minister and subject to such conditions and such valuation as he may prescribe. The provision now in the bill relating only to government securities of the home jurisdiction would then be unnecessary.
When the bill received attention in the other place there was no objection raised. The insurance industry indicated that it was satisfied with the amendments. However, since that time a number of comments have been received, mostly from the investment community, concerning the revision of the investment provisions. These comments were not critical of the principles involved but sought some revision of technical details to ease the problem of determining eligibility of new issues. It seems reasonable to make changes to accord with such requests. Consequently, some amendments will be proposed in committee to that end. In addition, a few other drafting points have been called to our attention and these also might be corrected in committee.
This is a bill of some technical complexity. The Superintendent of Insurance and other officials will be readily available to the committee for the purpose of considering this revision.


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, as the minister indicated, this bill has come to us from the other place where it was passed on March 16. Essentially, as the minister also said, it is a housekeeping bill with certain improvement provisions in it. I want to refer to the proceedings in the committee of the other place for a moment where the bill was referred to by the Superintendent of Insurance as being a formidable looking document, although he pointed out to the members of that committee that it was not quite as bad as it looked. I am not sure that he should be considering legislation on the basis of how it looks, but it is a fact that the bill has essentially three parts with basically similar provisions applying, first to Canadian companies, second to British companies, and third to foreign companies. So it is really only the first 17 clauses that we will be considering as the important part of the content.

Insurance Companies
I think the minister made the point that the main purpose of the bill is to revise and clarify the requirements for financial reporting for insurance companies. Reference is made in the bill to the use of actuaries and the studies that have been made by the actuarial societies and the accounting bodies, including undoubtedly the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Canada. I am often reminded that most people think of accounting as being an exact science, and I always disagree with that. I think this is a good example to show us that accounting is, in fact, an art. This amendment indicates that there are, in fact, many ways of presenting the accounting story, particularly in the insurance industry, and the bill will try to give some consistency to the presentation of the financial statements of insurance companies. I think we can all be thankful for that because it is not every individual, whether he be an investor or a policyholder, who can pick out the differences in the various shapes of the presentation that are possible at the moment.
I think it is a particularly good idea that the method of writing off expenses will be standardized. It used to be, in the insurance business, that a new insurance company was limited in the amount of business that it could write. On the one hand, most new companies want to do as much business as they can because that is a sign of activity and, usually, profitability. In the case of insurance companies, because of the write-offs that they were required to do, the case was the opposite; the more business they wrote, the more money they lost in the beginning, and they had to wait until the business first on the books had matured and started to produce some revenue before they could carry on and write more business.
It is an illustration that we might compare with the pipeline companies, for instance, or any other manufacturing concern where the initial investment, while it is very large, is set up on the books as a capital asset and is not written off until the revenue is earned. The practice that has been followed in the insurance companies is that the initial expenses of acquiring a business, such as sales commissions, and so on, have been written off, causing early losses on paper.
I note, also, that the proposals in the bill will give insurance companies broader powers in the field of real estate. That may, or may not, be a good thing. I want to examine a few avenues on that score. They have the power now to invest in real estate, subject to certain limitations. The proposals here would make two or three changes. In the first place, the companies would be enabled to invest jointly with other corporations in other real estate projects. I think that is something that would be acceptable-it would spread the risk a little bit.
Secondly, they would be able to invest in any one parcel an amount of 4 per cent instead of 2 per cent, of their total assets. I would like to comment on that in a little more detail because I am not sure that is not one of the areas with which we should be very careful in the House. Legislation such as this is designed to protect the policyholders more than the shareholders, and if these insurance companies, which have vast amounts of dollars to invest but very low shareholder equity,

June 3, 1977
relatively speaking, are enabled to double the amount they can invest in any particular parcel, then the exposure is being doubled to the shareholders-and that is all right-but also to the policyholders because, with the low equity ratio per shareholder, the policyholders are not far behind.
Already the insurance companies have embarked upon practices which I question, and I hope the committee will look at them when the bill gets to committee. That is, they have adopted the practice of buying land for development, and instead of developing it they lease it on a long-term basis to developers. Then the developer needs a mortgage loan, and normally he goes back to the same mortgage company and borrows on the mortgage on the property from the same insurance company. So, in effect, the insurance company has either total, or very nearly total, ownership of that development although it is subject to a leasehold of, usually, 65 years-sometimes longer, and sometimes shorter. There are two objections to that practice. First of all, any loss of equity in a particular project will reflect back on the equity of the shareholders, and if that is not adequate, the loss goes back to the policyholder. The object of the legislation is to protect the policyholders.
The other objection to which we must be alerted is that the insurance companies, by doing this, become the competitors of the ordinary developers and the tendency then, because there are then additional demands made on the purchase price of land, is to inflate the price of land and, once the project is completed, to deflate the rent. Members of the House may say there is no danger in investing in real estate-it is always going up. I would like to remind them of three cases that have been important enough to come to the attention of the House recently involving taxpayers' dollars. They were instances where the government-owned Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, because of enormous losses in projects, was forced to foreclose and take back possession of these projects. Undoubtedly there will be a tremendous loss-in one case it has already been realized-to the government and, therefore, to the taxpayers.
Those three instances are, first, the Rochdale loan in Toronto which was sold by CMHC at a great loss; second, the Hamilton Place project in Hamilton, Ontario, on which the government has had to commence foreclosure action and nothing has happened to the development for two years and it stands incomplete with something like $7 million or $8 million of taxpayers money invested and earning nothing; and third, right here in Ottawa the Quai d'Orsay which also is under foreclosure by CMHC. So I think that is a danger which we must look at very carefully.
I want to look quickly at the bill. The defintions do not really require any comment. I do not think the minister mentioned the investment by the insurance companies and securities of governments of countries other than Canada and the provinces. I think that when we get into committee we can find out why countries such as Australia and the United Kingdom, to name a couple, are no longer to be allowed as investment securities by insurance companies.
June 3, 1977

I think the changes in eligibility of common shares are reasonable. Instead of having a complete dividend report every five years, one of the four preceding years can be missed; in other words, four out of five.
There is another matter which I do not think the minister mentioned but which bears some careful consideration. Clause 9 would require certain companies to appoint a valuation actuary. When we get into the committee I think we will find out about that. I suppose the following clause is consequential. It would permit the auditor of a company to rely upon the opinion of the valuation actuary. I am not sure what the present process is, but I think we will have to be very careful with this, particularly because we have had problems with auditors and Crown corporations relying on outside auditors. Complications like that led to the introduction of Bill C-20, the Auditor General legislation, which is presently before the committee.
With those few reservations we on this side are generally in agreement with the proposals before us. We hope this bill will get to the committee quickly and that the committee will give it due consideration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this 60-page bill is obviously one of such a technical nature that the best place for it to be considered is in the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. We are therefore prepared to vote for the motion to send the bill to that committee for detailed study.
My first look at the bill and my listening to the first words of the minister led me to feel that it was probably a harmless piece of housekeeping, but when he said that Their Honours in the other place found nothing wrong with it, I began to wonder. When the shareholders, the directors and so on, who make up the Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce in the other place, find nothing wrong with a piece of legislation, the members of the House of Commons who represent the people of this country had better take a good look at it. I trust that will be done.


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

Donald Stovel Macdonald: that Bill C-53, to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms, errors and other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Revised Statutes of Canada 1970 and other Acts subsequent to 1970, be read the
Statute Law Amendment Act
second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been some discussions about the appropriate way to deal with Bill C-53, and I believe there is general agreement that instead of proceeding in the way set forth in the motion listed on the order paper, we could proceed today in the House to deal with both the second reading and the third reading stages. That, of course, would require a reference of the matter not to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, but instead to the Committee of the Whole House. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Landers) will be seeking the required consent later in the day to deal with this matter in that way, but I believe it is the disposition of the House to proceed in that fashion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to dealing with Bill C-53 in that way, and I have no objection to its being called now, but when the order of business is changed, I wish we could be informed. I was told not more than an hour ago that the next item of business would be Bill C-13, then Bill C-6 and then Bill C-53. The government seems to be all haywire.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the order of business for this afternoon has been subject to some revision. Indeed, I should have informed the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that the order of business had been changed. I should point out, however, that it was changed in order to assist some hon. members who wanted to participate in the debate on some of the items of business on the order paper today and who could only be here at some times and not at others. It was done solely so that we could convenience hon. members in participating in debates this afternoon. I regret that I was not able to draw that item to the attention of the hon. member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't do it again.


Mr. Mike Landers (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) cannot be here today, so I am going to take his place.
We have before us today a bill which presents itself as a unique and innovative vehicle for law reform. It addresses a problem common to all systems of legislation, namely, the existence of minor inconsistencies, anomalies, and other errors which have developed as a result of the process of passing the 400 or 500 statutes currently in operation at the federal level.
The special quality of this bill is, as I have said above, found in the manner in which it has been developed. Some time ago an announcement was made of this process of non-controversial law reform, and concerned members of the public were invited to submit appropriate suggestions to the Department of Justice. In response to this announcement a number of submissions were received from members of the provincial bars, from members of the judiciary, and from individuals whose positions

June 3, 1977
Statute Law Amendment Act
gave them a working understanding of various acts of parliament. In addition to organizing these suggestions, the Department of Justice also undertook its own study of where this kind of minor change was needed. A draft bill was then prepared, which was given to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for consideration. As befitting the nature of the bill, the valuable contributions of the members of the committee were made and accepted on an entirely non-partisan basis, and the bill before us today is the result of the committee's unanimous agreement. I might add that the committee also endorsed this special process for efficient enactment.
Before completing my remarks, I should emphasize that although this is the first time such a bill has come before parliament, it is our intention to develop an ongoing process for this kind of reform. To that end in the name of the Minister of Justice I again invite interested parties to forward to the department any other possible amendments of this nature.
In conclusion, I simply ask hon. members on all sides of the House to finalize this commitment to this important technique of law reform, and thereby meet our shared responsibility to provide Canadians with the most accurate legislation we can produce.
As the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Goodale) has mentioned, it is my understanding that there would be unanimous consent to deal with all stages of this bill today. I hope unanimous consent will be granted so that Bill C-53 can be referred to the Committee of the Whole House rather than to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter David Baker: On the last point, Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether a motion can be made that way but if the question were put to the House I want to assure the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Landers) that we have no objection to it. I also want to say, on behalf of the opposition, that the government has our commitment with respect to this kind of ongoing review. It is an essential measure particularly with complicated statutes where from time to time drafting errors have occurred which can cause difficulty. I think it is extremely important that this type of ongoing process, a sort of mini in-House law reform, be fostered where it is possible.
I should like to draw attention to another important aspect of this procedure. A draft bill was presented, the subject matter of which went to a committee of the House and, as the parliamentary secretary has said, it received unanimous agreement from all members of the committee with respect to matters which eventually came forward in the form of Bill C-53. I hope the government will keep that very healthy experience in mind and use the training, inclinations, and interests of all members of the House as an input to policy making. In advance of a bill being brought to the House,

where partisan positions are sometimes taken, studies could be made of it by all parties so that the hard positions that are sometimes taken can be dealt with and then parliament can go on to consider the difficulties that arise from the principle of the bill. I think this is a very healthy process, and we agree to the proposal made by the parliamentary secretary.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we are quite prepared to give second reading to this bill and to have it dealt with in committee of the whole rather than sending it back to the standing committee. I use the word "back" because even before the bill had been introduced in a formal way, a copy of it was sent to the standing committee so that members could go through it clause by clause.
The only comment I want to make is to take exception to a word that both the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Landers) and the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) used. Both referred to this as a form of law reform.


Walter David Baker: A mini reform.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I can assure those two hon. members and the House generally that if a bill of this size had any reform in it we would want to look at it much more closely and carefully than is the case today. As I see it, the bill does precisely what its title suggests. It corrects certain anomalies, inconsistencies, errors and so on. I have gone through it rather carefully hoping that I could find something in it that was far out and might give me a chance to hold it up at least for a few minutes, but I cannot find anything. It seems to be a case of simply correcting a number of errors and updating some phrases in a number of places. Certainly to correct things in this way by what we normally know as an omnibus bill is a reasonable and sensible thing to do.
I hate to think what it would do to our imminent recess if we had a separate bill to correct the changes in each of the different acts referred to in Bill C-53. So because it is what it is, simply a case of correcting errors and updating a few phrases, and since this has been looked at in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs which had the subject matter of the bill before it, we are happy to give the bill second reading and send it all the way through this afternoon.


Mr.   Claude-Andr@: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say a few words to associate myself with the remarks made by the previous speakers and point out the relevance of Bill C-53. I would just like to say a few words on the process that brought the House to consider Bill C-53 today. It is indeed rather important since it will probably be passed quite rapidly.
It must be pointed out that the justice committee held many meetings precisely to consider the clauses, the contents and the substance of Bill C-53 when it was not yet in the form of a bill but rather in the form of a study paper, and that the justice committee through all members and the representatives of all parties carefully made sure that no section, amendment or
June 3, 1977

correction to the anomalies set out amounted to a change in substance or in form. They were only corrections. As 1 say, that study was carried out carefully, and that is why we have before us today a bill which is not expected to run into any opposition. That is I think an important addition to parliamentary procedures, an addition which is welcomed and which will enable us to update on a regular basis bills which, because of the very complexity of government legislation today, may contain printing errors or other discrepancies. I think it is normal that we should now make provision for a mechanism such as this which will allow us on a regular basis to correct those anomalies and have a set of statutes that will hold up and will not be challenged eventually before the courts on futile grounds. So I too join with my colleagues and I point out that this new procedure now seems to have been ratified by the House today and will in future allow us to have properly drafted and readily understandable legislation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Mr. Macdonald (Rose-dale) (for the Minister of Justice) moves that Bill C-53, to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms, errors and other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Revised Statutes of Canada 1970 and other acts subsequent to 1970, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Ethier in the chair.
Clauses 2 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 10.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I do not rise for'the purpose of slowing down the process although we are going at lightning speed, but in case anybody reads Hansard and wonders what kinds of changes we are agreeing to in such great haste, Clauses 10 and 12 are good examples.
Clause 10 provides an amendment to the Copyright Act by striking out the words "4th day of June 1921"-I remember that date quite well-and substituting therefor the words "1st day of January, 1924." The explanation is that the date of Royal Assent rather than the date of proclamation got inserted in the act by mistake. What puzzles me is that nobody seems to have discovered this error until now. In any case, it is being corrected.
Clause 12 would make a change in the Diplomatic Immunities (Commonwealth Countries) Act, by changing the word "Ceylon", as it appears now, to the words "Sri Lanka", which
Statute Law Amendment Act
is the changed name of that country. This shows that the changes we are agreeing to are to put right errors; they are simply corrections. This is not a matter of massive law reform.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, while we are correcting errors, may I point out an error in clause 12 of the bill as now printed. I suggest that the clause should speak of the United Kingdom rather than the "United Kigdom". I think we might correct that.


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Shall clause 10 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
On clause 12.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I move that the word "Kigdom" be deleted from clause 12, line 35 on page 5 of the bill, and the word "Kingdom" be substituted therefor.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 17 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 18.
Mr. Towers:: Mr. Chairman, clause 18 defines a food animal as a, "bovine, swine, horse, sheep, goat-" etc. The amendment would also add whale, bison, domestic rabbit, deer, elk, moose or bird. The change which interests me is the word "bovine". Perhaps there is some reason for including that word. According to the Oxford Dictionary, bovine means of or like an ox, inert and dull. It seems to me that such a definition might have been current at the turn of the century. I wonder why we are reverting to the vocabulary of an earlier period?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It depends on whose ox is being gored.


Mike Landers: Mr. Chairman, I can only assume that word was included in order to be all encompassing. I am afraid I cannot answer the question. I am not familiar with the technicalities of the clause, but I will undertake to see that the hon. member gets an all-encompassing answer.


Charles Robert Turner: Shall clause 18 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 to 48 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 49.
[ Translation]


Mr. Lachance:: I want to point out at this stage, Mr. Chairman, because we have come to the last clause, that if it may seem somewhat strange that we should go through 49 clauses in five minutes it is because all those clauses were
6286

June 3, 1977
Diplomatic Relations
previously considered in detail by the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Charles Robert Turner: Shall clause 49 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 49 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Charles Robert Turner: Shall I report the bill?


Stanley Howard Knowles: You forgot the preamble.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave, now.


John (Moody) Roberts: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES ACT
John (Moody) Roberts: that Bill C-6, respecting Diplomatic and Consular Privileges and Immunities in Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.
He said: Mr. Speaker, having first entered the public service 15 years ago as a member of the Department of External Affairs, it gives me nostalgic pleasure to present this bill to the House on behalf of my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson).
The purpose of the legislation is relatively simple and I think I can explain its essential nature very easily. It gives the effect of statute law to two international conventions-the Convention of Vienna of 1961 and the Convention of Vienna of 1963. The first is a convention with regard to diplomatic relations and the second is a convention with regard to consular relations. The legislation places the existing and customary international law on a statutory basis within Canada. In other words, the provisions which this law places in statute form are

already binding on the government as the common law standards of international law. In a sense what we are doing is codifying the existing situation and to some extent elaborating it in greater detail. It will make more specific the existing obligations placed upon the government by virtue of its membership in the international community.
I can assure hon. members that this legislation gives no greater immunity or no more privileges to diplomatic or consular officials than they hold at the present time. It will, however, make it easier for Canada to apply present standards of international law since the material will now be easily available to those who need it in a definitive form. The legislation, then, is not very controversial and I hope hon. members will expedite its passage to committee.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, just because this is a Friday afternoon and an occasion on which a good deal of business is being transacted does not seem to me a reason why a bill having certain implications should be quickly handled, particularly when the opening statement by the minister is more significant for what it has omitted than for what it has contained.
I wish to spend a few moments discussing the bill. I ask myself: why has it been brought forward at this time? It is true, as the minister has told us, that the bill presents us with nothing new, to the extent that the Vienna Conventions of 1961 and 1963 have been adhered to by Canada as well as by most of the other nations of the world, and that what is now codified in the measure before us does not in any way change the rights or immunities which our diplomats in other countries enjoy or which we ourselves extend to diplomats who come to Canada. The purpose of the bill is to put into statute form certain of the articles in the two Vienna Conventions. I believe we ought to ask ourselves, when the bill goes before the committee, why certain other articles in those treaties have been excluded.
As the minister pointed out, these Conventions reflect the principles of customary international law with respect to diplomatic and consular immunities and privileges. Because the privilege and immunities embodied in the Conventions have the force of international law they also have the force of common law in Canada to the extent the common law incorporates international law. Therefore, while the provisions of the Conventions do not have the force of statute law, a court would probably refer to them for guidance as to what is the customary diplomatic practice. The question which arises, however, is this: if the Vienna Conventions are already incorporated into Canadian law via the common law, why give certain of their articles the force of statute law?
I believe the bill really has its origin in the fact that the government of Quebec brought before the national assembly of that province in 1974 a bill dealing with the privileges and immunities of diplomatic and consular officials in that province, a bill which contained articles quite different from the principles embodied in the Vienna Conventions and one which was, in the opinion of federal government lawyers, outside the competence of the Quebec government. Quebec was duly
June 3, 1977

informed of this and a series of meetings was held on the subject between representatives of the two governments, the last one taking place early this year. The genesis of the bill before us lies, I suggest, in the action which was taken by Quebec.
As it happened, the legislation was not proceeded with following the election of a new government in Quebec which has not yet seen fit to seek legislative enactment of the provisions of the former bill. I believe this move on the part of Quebec caused the federal government to think seriously about this subject and it has apparently decided it would be highly desirable, if not necessary, to embody these diplomatic privileges and immunities in statute law as has been done in other common law countries.
Since the legislation does not represent a departure from previous practice there is no ground for our party objecting to it or delaying it. However, I do believe that certain questions as to the origins of the measure and the reason for bringing it forward at this time should be properly answered, hopefully in this Chamber before the conclusion of second reading or, if not, certainly at the committee stage. The legislation has a desirable consequence in that it states clearly and unequivocally the nature of the diplomatic immunities and privileges which Canada grants, and also the circumstances in which they may be suspended, revoked or reinstated.
The first question which needs to be asked is why certain articles in the Vienna Conventions have been left out. We have chosen to distinguish between those articles which establish rights and obligations between governments and which therefore do not require the force of law for implementation, and those articles which affect the rights of private persons in Canada or afford special privileges and immunities and which therefore do require the force of law for implementation. With this in mind, it is clear why certain articles were selected for inclusion while others were excluded, with the possible exception of Article 26 of the diplomatic convention which promises freedom of movement and travel anywhere in Canada, except for zones entering into which is restricted or regulated for reasons of national security.
This article was excluded from the list of articles to be incorporated into statute law. I think this raises a fundamental question which the minister should explain to us, even on second reading. According to external affairs, persons in Canada already have freedom to move in public places, and as this article neither affects this right nor specifies immunities or privileges, its inclusion was not considered to be necessary.
I think a fuller explanation is required, for members of some diplomatic missions do in fact have their freedom of movement limited. For example, we know that Soviet diplomats as well as Chinese diplomats in our city are restricted to an area within a certain radius of Ottawa. I think we might ask by what means these restrictions are imposed under present circumstances, and which diplomatic missions are so affected. Are these
Diplomatic Relations
restrictions to be regarded as a permanent feature of diplomatic relations between Canada and these other countries?
In other words, while it is true that Article 26 does not establish a privilege or an immunity, it is equally true that some diplomats do not enjoy normal freedom of movement in Canada. What we are seeking, therefore, is to establish why the principle of freedom of movement should not be included in the new statute.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, restriction of movement of foreign diplomats in Canada is a counter measure imposed by the Canadian government because the movement of Canadian diplomats in certain foreign countries is restricted. In essence, it is a tit for tat arrangement. Certain diplomats of various ranks from a foreign embassy are permitted to go a certain number of miles, which is all worked out on a sort of slide rule basis. I would only say that, as nations are coming closer together in a new kind of world which has grown up since the time the Vienna Conventions were first passed, more attention should be given on a universal basis to increasing all freedom of movement of diplomats in the countries to which they are properly accredited.
In saying that I am thinking, for example, of the restrictions which Canadian diplomats face in China, a country which I visited not so long ago, a reflection of which we find in today's Globe and Mail, in which a scientific team tells us about the effects of the recent earthquake in China which are only now coming to light because foreign diplomats and media personnel were not able to travel to the areas of China which suffered severely from the recent earthquake. Consequently the world at large had not realized the seriousness of the earthquake which struck China. Various measures of aid and assistance were withheld simply for lack of information. When I was in China Canadian authorities pointed out to me that they themselves could do a better job of reflecting the fullness of development inside China were they themselves able to travel more widely.
The same is true of Chinese diplomats who are accredited to Canada. The very idea that special permission is required for ranking members of the Chinese delegation in Ottawa to go out to the west coast or to my own province of Alberta is anathema to me, in the kind of world in which we live. Therefore I think it behooves the Canadian government to make an effort to increase the travel rights of all diplomats in nations to which they are accredited.
I move from considerations of travel to the final point that I want to make in my brief intervention. I refer to abuses of diplomatic privileges. I am going to say a word about Canada but I think I ought to put the matter in proper perspective. We read in a recent issue, March, 1977, The Economist of London that lawlessness is on the increase in Britain, if for no other reason than that the diplomatic community in London increasingly treats yellow lines in the streets as a bit of decoration to brighten the place up. The 32,000 parking tickets which were given to foreign diplomats in London in 1972 had grown last year to 93,000. The article gives a rather impressive list of
80016-57'/)

June 3, 1977
Diplomatic Relations
countries of the world which were ignoring traffic regulations in London.
We can now insert into the picture the Canadian experience. In 1975 some 5,516 foreign diplomats were accused of breaking Canadian laws but, of course, were not charged because they invoked diplomatic immunity. This is a situation which merits attention. The matter has been brought up in the House. Various spokesmen for the Department of External Affairs point out each time it is brought up that foreign diplomats ought to look to themselves to improve their record in the country which has received them, at the same time pointing out that when Canadian diplomats go abroad they are expected to respect the laws of the country which receives them, including the traffic laws. I dare say that any Canadian diplomat who ran up a record of traffic offences in the country which received him would not long be representing Canada. I think there is something out of balance here in the way that we tolerate such excessive violations of our laws under the guise of diplomatic immunity.
I have put on the record the 1975 figures. Let me give the 1976 figures for the city of Ottawa alone, which of course has the most diplomats in Canada. There were 4,788 traffic tickets issued to members of the diplomatic community in 1976. No charges were laid in connection with 13 traffic accidents and 82 traffic violations because diplomatic immunity was involved.
I think the external affairs department ought to be explaining in what way abuses of diplomatic status can be cut down. The country on the list with the highest number of infringements of Canadian law in which diplomatic immunity has been pleaded is Uganda, which topped the list of 1976 violations with 611.


Mr. Prud'homme:: That is typical.


Douglas Roche: It certainly is unacceptable, and I think it is also somewhat mysterious in view of the fact that there are only five accredited Ugandan diplomats in our city. This seems to suggest a gross violation of our laws by Ugandans, and I think it is time this country took some action.
In speaking of Uganda in terms of diplomatic immunity and the rights which representatives of countries have in other countries, all of which are encompassed in this bill, and at the same time considering the opening preamble to the Vienna Convention which talks of the promotion of friendly relations among nations, the principles of the United Nations and so on, 1 cannot conclude my remarks without insisting once more that we should seriously consider whether we should give hospitality to President Idi Amin of Uganda who stands a chance of getting into this country when the Commonwealth Games are held. I believe that the government ought to make very clear that we consider diplomatic niceties go only so far, that in the case of President Amin of Uganda no diplomatic niceties or courtesies will be extended, especially in light of the report of the International Commission of Jurists, a body which Ambassador Beaulne of Canada has said is beyond reproach.
[Mr. Roche.)
The International Commission of Jurists has reported to the United Nations, in a 130 page report, that 100,000 people have been murdered in the six years of Amin's administration. Therefore I think it is time for Canada to make very clear the limits of our tolerance.
I end with a quotation from the London Times concerning the report of the International Commission of Jurists. I refer to a quote from the Archbishop of Uganda who was murdered a few weeks ago in that country:
From the Archbishop to his own wife, President Amin knows no mercy. He kills, causes to be killed, presides over a growing apparatus for killing ...
The Organization of African Unity ignores the matter... The African states protect Amin from criticism in the United Nations. The United Nations Human Rights Commission is quite active in respect of South Africa, Chile and some other countries which its membership agree are inhumanely oppressive regimes. For the Human Rights Commission to live up to its title for a strong resolution, white men have to torment and debase black men or right wing secret police have to maltreat liberals or leftists. No other abrogation of human rights seems to produce any protest. In short, the Human Rights Commission has little or nothing to do with rights, justice or human conscience. It is, or has become, a political and propaganda body. It makes a mockery of human rights, as solemnly written into international conventions.
I conclude my comments on Bill C-6, bearing in mind that I think it is proper to raise a question as to the origin of the bill, to consider the travel restrictions, to talk about the abuses, and to focus once more on the special problem that Uganda presents to the diplomatic community today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the main purpose of this bill is made clear in the fact that it will repeal the Diplomatic Immunities (Commonwealth Countries) Act and replace it by the Diplomatic and Consular Privileges and Immunities Act. In other words, it proposes to broaden things to deal not only with diplomats but with consular representatives, and that applies both ways. There is also the question of giving a certain status to the two Vienna Conventions. This is a step we should be taking.
The bill, with its schedules, is a complicated one which should be studied carefully in the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. The smart thing to do this afternoon is to send the bill to that committee. I am sure the points raised by the last speaker, particularly with respect to the abuse of immunities, will be dealt with in that committee. The members, generally, will go into this bill and all its provisions very carefully. We are happy to see the bill get second reading and be sent to committee this afternoon.
[Translation}


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I intended to take part in this debate but we are doing so well with the business of the House today that this bill, which should probably have been taken up next week, is now being referred to our Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. I shall chair that Committee. To speed up the business of the House, I would therefore prefer to keep my remarks for the time when we study bills in that committee.
June 3, 1977

That is why I choose to bring an end to my remarks without further delay.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.

Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, in view of the hour, and in view of the good progress we have been able to make in the House this afternoon, rather than beginning the other item of business which we had noted for this afternoon, the Historic Sites and Monuments Act, it might be wise to call it four o'clock and to proceed with private members' business at this time, if the House is in agreement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to agree to calling it four o'clock right away. But before we do so, I wonder if I could raise a point of order with the parliamentary secretary on the question of Monday's business. If he hears me refer to something I have referred to 40 times, I ask him not to laugh at it. I am making the point very seriously. Monday is a long day. We will sit from eleven to one, two to six, and eight to 10.30 p.m. The amount of government business slated for that day is so slim that we could well finish it in the morning session. All we have slated is Bill C-13, and the parliamentary secretary has mentioned Bills C-36 and C-40 to me. Therefore I ask the parliamentary secretary to make the strongest representations he can to his government House leader, and I ask the ministers present to do so as well, that Bill C-30 be brought forward for debate on Monday. That is the bill which has to do with Heritage Day and with the name of July 1.
The government is scraping the barrel because most of the legislation we have to deal with before the summer is still out in committees. Let's not find ourselves adjourning on Monday at one o'clock with nothing to do for the rest of the day, when it would be possible to deal with Bill C-30. 1 do not expect the parliamentary secretary to say "yes" to me because his authority is too limited. But I ask him and the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts), who is also present, to make the strongest possible representations in order that that legislation will be brought on this Monday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Andre:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the representations made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and in order that the parliamentary secretary and the government House leader have an accurate picture of the
Road Safety
situation, I would not consider it wise to assume that the advice given to him would necessarily expedite the efficient conduct of business in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let's find out.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has noted, we do have Bill C-13 remaining from today's work, the bill dealing with historic sites. It would be our intention to proceed with that item as the first item of business on Monday. As to the order of business later in the day, there have been some discussions with respect to two transportation items, Bills C-36 and C-40, although no conclusions have been arrived at with respect to those two items. However, it might be useful if hon. members could direct their attention to them in case they do come before the House on Monday or later next week.
As far as the specific representation with respect to Bill C-30 is concerned, the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) is present, and I am sure he and I will convey those representations to the government House leader, as well as the reservation or the caveat which was filed by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre).


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


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Notice of motion No. 16, in the name of the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin). Shall the motion stand, at the request of the government?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Notice of motion No. 17, in the name of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). Shall the motion stand, at the request of the government?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


TRANSPORT
Mr.   Sean@: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should initiate, in co-operation with provincial governments and appropriate organizations, a na-

June 3, 1977
Road Safety
tional campaign to promote driving safety throughout Canada in the interest of preservation of human life and courtesy among the driving public.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this week all hon. members of this House welcomed to this Chamber the six victors in the recent federal by-elections. Naturally not all of us were as pleased as they themselves or their respective parties must have been at those victories. Nevertheless, we all congratulate them, welcome them, and wish them well in their parliamentary careers.
Four of those members are new to this House and they will experience the unique feeling, or set of feelings, that only those who sit in this Chamber can possibly know. To sit in the House of Commons of Canada, knowing the confidence placed in you by your respective constituents, knowing of their high hopes and aspirations for our country, is to feel a very special bond with each and every Canadian citizen, and a heartfelt obligation to our wonderful country.
Every time that an hon. member rises to speak in this House, he is mindful of the tremendous privilege which has been given to him. I am certainly cognizant of that privilege every time I sit in this Chamber, especially when I have an opportunity to place before the House some thoughts of special concern to the people of Hamilton-Wentworth and, hopefully, to the people of Canada.
Therefore I appreciate the time and indulgence of the House in being here today and speaking very briefly in support of the motion which I have chosen as my one private member's motion of this session. Perhaps a word of background is in order.
During the last parliament I placed the very same motion before the consideration of this House, on April 29, 1974. Its fate was the one which seems to be common practice in this House, although I am happy to say it is a practice that seems to be growing less frequent, that is, the motion was debated until the allotted time had expired, and therefore no action was taken on the part of the government by virtue of a direction from this House, such as passage of the motion would have given.
During the debate, however, my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), spoke very briefly and said at that time, and 1 quote:
Regardless of what happens to the present motion raised in today's private members' hour, the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth has done a service by raising the issue. I join with him in calling for doubled and redoubled effort in all ways that can cut down the loss of life on our highways. I say to the hon. member that he has done well to raise this issue. I call on him to stick with it.
Those words of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre meant a great deal to me, coming as they did from a gentleman who is recognized as one of the leading figures in this House. Obviously he and I have had our political disagreements, and continue to hold some very fundamental differences of opinion both in matters pertaining to political philosophy, current policies, and perhaps approaches to political life. But I have a respect for the hon. member which I believe to be shared in all parts of this House, and his comments to me
[Mr. O'Sullivan.j
during that last parliament, my First term in office, were a source of great encouragement and were very deeply appreciated. In this instance I am very happy indeed to take his advice. Moreover, the situation facing Canadians today in the matter of highway safety, driving safety generally, and courtesy on the roads still demands and commands the attention of the elected representatives of the Canadian people.
The motion is in many ways self-explanatory and does not require a great deal of elaboration beyond what it states quite simply. I call upon the federal government to initiate immediately, in co-operation with the provincial governments and appropriate organizations, a national campaign to promote driving safety throughout Canada in the interests of preservation of human life and courtesy among the driving public.
This is not to suggest that I should like to impose upon provincial governments a policy formulated here in Ottawa in an area which is clearly under the jurisdiction of those governments. The intent of this motion is, instead, to bring together the expertise which the provinces and the various safety-minded organizations in Canada have gathered through their own studies and research and driving safety campaigns. Quite simply, I want us to think as a nation in promoting driving safety, in combating the carnage on our highways. I believe that the Canadian people should have placed at their disposal the evidence and experience gained across the country so that we might benefit as a nation. I should just like to cite a couple of examples.
In 1975 the Ontario ministry of transportation and communications published "The Human Collision", which noted in part that during 1973 there were nearly 100,000 people injured and 2,000 killed in traffic accidents in Ontario. Serious accidents are especially frequent among younger people. For people under the age of 35, traffic accidents are responsible for more deaths than any disease and for more deaths than all other accidents combined. The booklet containing this information was prepared by the research and development division of the provincial ministry of transportation. The very existence of this division endorses my motion. It is but one agency studying traffic safety problems in one province. No doubt its aims and functions are duplicated over and over again. It is time to bring all that expertise together and, moreover, to present the details of the combined knowledge and research to the Canadian people.
Similarly, in 1974 the then minister of health and social development for Alberta established a task force on highway accidents and suicides. The Honourable Neil Crawford, who continues to have a distinguished career in provincial politics, belongs to a special fraternity of Canadians who have participated actively in the public life of Canada at various levels, having first gained their training in close association with one of the acknowledged masters of Canadian political life. I refer to those whose careers have included service as assistants on Parliament Hill to the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). That special fraternity includes people as distinguished as Tom Van Dusen, Greg Guthrie, Lee Richard-
June 3, 1977

son, and most recently, Keith Martin, to name just a few of the prominent members of that group.
The document, or report, in 1974 to which I referred, was a concise and well-written document. There were a couple of points in it I thought noteworthy to the debate before us. The committee reported that they had assembled a collection of the world literature in their areas of interest and had accumulated a very large number of reference articles in both fields. I think it significant that this committee studying highway accidents should refer to world literature. It is a universal problem, and it seems to me that the important goal of protecting and saving human lives should encourage us to look beyond our limited borders, be they provincial or even national, to take full advantage of the experience of others.
This same interim report referred to a national roadside survey "which had been carried out in many Canadian provinces and which might serve as an opportunity for providing uniform information across the country". And the committee went on to say:
We feel that anything we could do to co-operate with the provinces and the Ministry of Transport to obtain information about situations on the highway would be worth while.
That we lack effective co-ordination of traffic procedures is clear. One need only look at the prevailing speed limits and statutes regulating seat belt legislation throughout the provinces as easy examples. The speeds vary, as do regulations pertaining to the wearing of seat belts. I do not wish to have this House, as I said earlier, impose its will upon provinces in an area under provincial jurisdiction, but we all share this common aim and goal of protecting the well-being and safety of Canadians. It falls to the federal government to take the initiative, to bring the provinces together, and to ensure that all Canadians benefit from the experience of individual provinces as well as from the expertise of safety minded organizations.
It would be improper on my part to suggest that no action has been taken in this area. In the same year that I first brought this motion to the attention of the House, the first meeting was held here in Ottawa of the officials participating in the federal-provincial co-operative road safety program. Its goal was to reduce the national road fatality rate by 15 per cent over five years. Just this past week a press release from Transport Canada arrived on my desk and I was delighted to note that in the period 1973 to 1976, a 30 per cent decrease in the national road fatality rate was reported at the most recent meeting of these same federal and provincial road safety officials. It is especially encouraging to quote some of the remarks contained in that press release. For example it states:
The number of highway fatalities in Canada dropped from 6,703 in 1973, an all time high, to 5,262 in 1976. This represents a decrease in the road fatality rate from 6.7 fatalities per million vehicle miles to 4.7, a 30 per cent reduction.
This downward trend in the number of fatalities, the first ever recorded in Canada's motoring history, occurred when the number of vehicles and the amount of travel on Canadian highways was increasing.
Road Safety
The federal and provincial representatives recognized that the decrease has likely been influenced by changes in economic and social conditions in recent years, as well as by various federal and provincial measures under the co-operative program.
Nothing could have pleased me more than to read that information from Transport Canada, and I wish to take this opportunity to express, I am confident, on behalf of all members of this House, and all drivers in Canada, deep-felt appreciation to those responsible for bringing about this federal-provincial co-operative road safety program, and for the co-operation obviously extended in its tremendous success. It has brought us closer to our goal, but we are still 5,206 human lives away from our ultimate goal and aim, and many tens of thousands of human injuries away.
Looking ahead, therefore, I want the House, through my motion, to commend and endorse this program so strongly that it will continue, and will be given the fullest possible support by this government and by all provincial governments and safety-minded agencies so that the co-operative program will continue in the coming years, as has been promised.
What sort of national campaign do I want to see brought about? I shall leave the details to those far better versed than I in this special area. But I think that any campaign of promoting driving courtesy, which ultimately results in greater safety on the roads, must, to be successful, be a joint venture that has the support of Canadian governments at all levels, and one that is realistic in its approach to the problem.
We are all aware that the dangers on the road are especially severe in so far as young people are concerned, and statistics indicate that young male drivers are the most frequent victims. Any national campaign to promote driving safety would be off to a good start if it heeded the advice of Mr. J. Lome McDougall, a former professor and member of the city council of Kingston, who wrote an article published in the Calgary Herald on March 3, 1977. He contrasted the traditional approach of promoting driving safety with the one which he believes, and I share his view, would have much greater success. I quote Mr. McDougall:
The well-intentioned old want to save young men from themselves. If they are to be successful, they must learn to invite co-operation, and win it, or they will get nowhere.
Maybe it would help if they would start by trying to state the positive values they wish the young to adopt. They might even learn something about themselves if they would do so.
Forget the prohibitions; they get nowhere. Try being positive.
See if you can promote respect for life (including one's own), courtesy, and consideration for the right of others.
From there it is a small step to asking the young to grow in self-respect, and once that point is made, many good things may follow.
Speak with the voice of force and compulsion and you will speak to deaf ears.
Invite a discussion of the moral problem and young men may hear you.
That is wise advice form Mr. McDougall which I commend to all officials should they decide to accept the challenge that I hope this House will endorse, of bringing about a great national campaign, supported by governments at all levels, to promote driving safety and courtesy.

June 3, 1977
Road Safety
It is only natural, Mr. Speaker, that I would be grateful if this House should decide to endorse my motion.
I have already taken note of, and expressed commendation for, the actions already taken by both federal and provincial officials in this field. The adoption of my resolution today would, in my opinion, serve the useful purpose of encouraging those officials to continue and expand their efforts.
The purpose of this motion is quite simple. We, as members of parliament, are sent here by the Canadian people to preserve their freedoms and protect their rights. The most basic right is	that of life itself.	That is why I introduced	this motionin the	last parliament	and have	now brought	it forwardagain at this time. Much has been done. But, as the families of traffic victims will attest, there is much that remains for all of us to do. The protection of this very basic right, the right to life, is	surely one of the greatest	concerns and	one of thehighest	causes to which	a member	of parliament	can devote
whatever time he or she may be privileged to serve in this House.
Many hon. members have, in their own way, advanced and defended this great right, this basic right, of all the Canadian people. I think, for example, that by her courageous action the hon. member for York South (Mrs. Appolloni) has taken great political risks, especially in standing up to very powerful figures within her own party, in her own very dedicated efforts to advance the preservation and protection of human life at all its stages. I cite her as an example of outstanding dedication and moral courage to those new members to whom I referred earlier, and who have joined us in this Chamber in this House of Commons this past week.
As one who came to parliament in 1972, with the same high hopes and the same aspirations as, no doubt, the new members bring, I want to pass along this brief word of advice. Nothing could honour their careers in this place more that to take an active role, whenever the opportunity arises, in advancing the cause of the most basic right and freedom of every Canadian, the right to life.
Perhaps all of us who sit in this House, regardless of the seniority or official opposition given to us, might reflect upon this essential duty of every member of parliament. In thinking about it, in thinking about our duties and reflecting upon our role as the elected representatives of the people of Canada, I recalled a letter which I received in 1966 when I was 14 years old, a student in Hamilton, and very much interested in policital life. I had already been a member of the Progressive Conservative party for two years, having since the age of 12 taken an active part in politics at various levels. I am mindful of the very special opportunities which have been given to me and am deeply grateful to that party and to the people who have made all of them possible. I think of the unique experience which has been mine, such as twice being elected from Hamilton-Wentworth under the leadership of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield).
I think, as well, that now I am serving in this House, at a time probably more exciting and important than any time in our history, with the possible exception of Confederation,

under the leadership of the dedicated Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), with whom I entered parliament in 1972, and whose compassion, concern, and qualities of leadership are known to all in this House. Moreover, I reflect upon the wonderful experience which was mine prior to election to parliament in serving as executive assistant to the right hon. member for Prince Albert, the person who brought me into political life.
The words which he spoke in this House, and which were contained in his letter to me dated April 4, 1976, reflect an attitude of parliament that I believe would be shared by both party leaders whom 1 have just mentioned, and with whom I share an esteem for the Dean of this House. Although it is not my practice to make public use of personal correspondence, I believe that he would not mind being quoted in that letter which reads in part as follows:
I was interested in your comment on the recent events in parliament, and I am sure that you will be in full agreement with the words I used during the debate to which you refer:
"Mr. Speaker, this institution must not fail. Without it there is no freedom. We are here today not only as the custodians of the present and inheritors of the past but, Mr. Speaker, we are as well the hope of this institution's future. Let us get to work on the many issues facing Canada today."
It is signed, of course, by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. I fully agree with those comments. I hope all hon. members will take them to heart as we pause to recall what a tremendous honour and privilege it is to serve the Canadian people in this House of Commons, and especially to work with people such as the right hon. member.
I am grateful to the House for the time given to me to present this motion, and at this time I too say in a non-partisan spirit, starting with this motion of vital importance concerning human life, this institution must not fail. Let us get to work on the many issues facing Canada today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ross Milne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan) for proposing the motion we are dealing with today, and particularly for the very excellent speech he just gave to the House. Every time he speaks I enjoy listening to him. Whether 1 agree with him or not, I appreciate the sincerity with which he delivers his speeches, and also his ability. I think he makes a real contribution to the Parliament of Canada.
The hon. member has proposed this motion previously, and I agree with him that those who succeed with points of view in this House are those who raise them often and speak to them strongly. Perhaps by doing that the hon. member will achieve his objective.
Surely all hon. members share the concern of the hon. member. In 1973 traffic fatalities reached an all-time high of well over 6,700 people, which is very high when it is considered as a percentage of the Canadian population. Early in 1974 a joint statement released by the federal and provincial ministers
June 3, 1977

responsible for road safety and motor vehicle administration indicated the intention of those ministers to increase safety efforts and to establish a five-year program to improve the road safety situation.
A target reduction of 15 per cent in the traffic fatality rate by 1979 was set. In view of the rapidly increasing number of cars on the road those ministers were very optimistic to think that they could achieve such a goal, but I am pleased to report, as did the previous speaker, that not only has that goal been met, but it has actually been exceeded. In a statement which was issued recently by Transport Canada-I believe last week following the most recent series of meetings of senior officials from the 11 governments-it was noted that fatalities had fallen from 5,262 to a rate of 4.7 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles driven. This represents a decrease in the fatality rate of 30 per cent since 1973. I do not think any one person or group can take most of the credit; that credit should be shared amongst the many people who have been concerned about this problem and who have done something about it.
Many factors have been involved, not the least of which, I suggest, was the emergence of the energy situation. Perhaps people are now driving fewer miles per person than they were previously, and hopefully they are driving the miles they do drive at a lower rate of speed in an effort not only to reduce the number of deaths on our highways but also to achieve greater energy efficiency from their cars.
The same statement identified a number of measures which have contributed to this decrease, in addition to those I mentioned. Improved seat belts and increased public awareness of the benefits of them have contributed to the decrease. Two provinces have passed legislation requiring the use of seat belts. 1 think that has been an important factor. Certainly in the late model cars 1 have driven the seat belts are much more comfortable and more convenient than those used in the past. In my own case, I use them much more than I did previously because seat belts in the past were neither convenient nor particularly comfortable.
I have heard comments from a number of women suggesting that the seat belts in older cars are very uncomfortable for them to use. I think the improvement in the design has meant that many more travelling Canadians now use seat belts. That has obviously contributed to the better road safety record we now enjoy.
We now have stiffer penalties in the Criminal Code for impaired driving. Some of those penalties have been debated in this House during the life of this parliament. Speed limits have been reduced in several provinces. That has been beneficial, but certainly not to the degree it could be. The lowering of the speed limits coincided with concern about energy supplies, yet when one travels on our highways the fact that the speed limits have been reduced is not terribly apparent.
That is not the impression one gets when travelling in the United States. Where speed limits are 55 miles an hour in the United States, that is the rate of speed of most of the traffic. I suggest that on many of the highways in Canada the majority of drivers exceed the speed limit, and a great deal of highway
Road Safety
safety could be achieved by an even more rigorous policing of our reduced speed limits.
There has been a systematic removal of road hazards and continued improvement in highway design. I was driving on quite an old highway last week, and I thought about how safe our newer highways are in comparison. That is perhaps one of the things we often overlook. The highways in many parts of Canada have wide shoulders and fairly well designed and banked turns. There are adequate signs to indicate hazards and so on, and perhaps all those things have been very effective as well. Many organizations have initiated programs which weigh on the consciences of people, and that has been effective. I have been impressed by television advertising, particularly that of the Ministry of Transport, in relation to impaired driving. Those advertisements are perhaps the most effective I have seen with regard to almost anything, and perhaps that message is slowly getting across.
As a result of the efforts of the Canadian Safety Council, the automobile industry and the provinces, there has been a good deal of promotional material on the safer use of motor vehicles and also on the training of people who use them. Being an engineer, I am interested in design, and while many people complain that we do not build cars the way we used to, perhaps from a safety point of view it is a good thing we do not because new cars today are certainly much safer than those which were built 10, 12 or 15 years ago. I think that public concern that automobiles are built safely is demonstrated by the number of recalls which take place. It takes very little concern about the safety of motor products to get manufacturers to go to considerable expense and trouble to recall vehicles with inadequacies. I think that is a very commendable thing.
I wanted to participate briefly in this debate to indicate that a good deal has been accomplished but, as the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth indicated, it is only a start. I congratulate him on his statement. We are still exceeding our goal by some 5,000 deaths and we want to strive for a totally fatality-free record of driving in Canada. I hope that all levels of government, voluntary organizations, and all the people concerned, will make a co-ordinated effort to achieve this worth-while goal.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan) for introducing this motion again this session. I thank him most warmly for the kind references he made to me this afternoon, but I thank him in particular for the way in which he has honoured me by accepting my advice. I say to him again, "Stick with it".
I might say a further word of a personal nature to the hon. member and tell him that in the early years of my experience in this House I put forward a few causes that meant a great deal to me, and I stuck with them. I have been sitting here thinking about them and I believe I can say that something has been done about all of them-maybe not as much as I would have liked, but something has been done even if in some cases
6294

June 3, 1977
Road Safety
it took 25 or 30 years. 1 hope the hon. member will not have to wait that long to see real progress in the matter of increased highway safety.
I do not see any justification for the motion being talked out this afternoon. It is not even a motion that calls for committee time to be taken on it; it is simply a motion that would express an opinion by this House of Commons, an opinion which it would be hoped the government would note. I hope, even if instructions are around that this motion is to be talked out, that the members of the Friday afternoon club who are here- and it is always a pleasure to be with them-will decide to let this motion through.
This is an extremely important issue. It is a tragedy of the worst sort that with all the improvements we have made in transportation, with the technology that we have developed, there is such wholesale slaughter of human beings in our automobiles. I believe this requires the kind of permanent and constant attention that has been suggested by the hon. member who presented this motion which has been supported by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications (Mr. Milne) who has just spoken.
Because I would like to see the motion get through I must avoid taking any more time. I shall therefore take my seat momentarily, but I should like to say to the hon. member that in discussing this issue of highway accidents I hope he will not shy away from the question of alcohol. I do not have the statistics in front of me, but we all know that a large percentage of highway deaths stem from the use of alcohol. It is fine to have laws that provide penalties for impaired driving and so on, but I think we must go further than that and support the kind of campaign that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) sometimes engages in which would call for a changed attitude toward the drinking of alcoholic beverages.
We sometimes think of north American society as a society that has had a love affair with the automobile, but alcohol seems to be in there as well and the two do not mix.
I urge the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth in presenting his case from year to year to include alcohol with the other matters that should be raised. I congratulate him again. I am glad he is sticking with it, and I plead with him to continue to do so until he wins the battle.


Mr.   Wm. Andres@Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, in rising to respond to the motion proposed by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan) I want to add my commendation for his persistence. As the member for the neighbouring riding I am well aware of his persistence and hard work.
I would stress the seriousness of the road safety problem, if I may, by making a comparison to the costs of World War II not only in dollars but in terms of human lives and suffering. During six years of war, total Canadian military appropriations were $11.6 billion dollars, or an average of $1.93 billion per year. In 1975 the costs to our country in terms of medical bills, car repairs, and loss of productivity as a result of traffic

accidents was estimated to be 2 per cent of the Gross National Product, or $2.5 billion. There were 17,682 Canadian battle deaths or persons who died of battle injuries over the six-year period of the war, an average of 2,950 fatalities per year. In comparison there have been 36,113 traffic fatalities in the last six years, or an average of 6,000 per year. These appallingly gross figures attest to the need for a co-ordinated effort by all levels of government in implementing a multi-disciplinary countermeasures program to combat the road safety problem.
Recent accident investigations estimate that 80 per cent to 90 per cent of traffic accidents are a result of human error. It is my opinion, and I am sure this opinion is shared by others, and it was alluded to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), that a major source of that error is alcohol, with 40 per cent of drivers killed being found impaired, and 53 per cent of adult pedestrians killed being found impaired, as well. In view of these figures, Mr. Speaker, I will confine my remarks to the Canadian government's research activities and countermeasures programs relating to the problem of impaired driving and the role of alcohol in traffic accidents.
In 1974 Transport Canada conducted a national roadside survey, using an internationally approved methodology, in order to assess the nature and extent of drinking and driving habits in Canada. During a 12-week period 9,700 drivers were surveyed at over 500 sites across Canada between the hours of 10 p.m. and 3 a.m. on Wednesday, Thursday, and Saturday nights. Information on drinking habits, trip origin and destination, as well as demographic information, was collected. In addition, each driver was asked to provide a sample of breath which was later analyzed for blood alcohol content.
Of the drivers surveyed 20.4 per cent had been drinking prior to driving, 11.2 per cent were probably impaired, and 5.4 per cent had blood alcohol concentration at or above the statutory limit of 80 mg per cent. The results of this survey indicate that the chance of meeting a drinking driver more than doubles between the two hours prior to midnight and the 1 a.m. to 3 a.m. time period. Drinking and driving appears to be almost as serious on weekdays as on week ends. The data also reveals that driving after drinking is most prevalent among males, among the middle-aged, among the unemployed, and among the separated and divorced drivers.
I point out that a survey of this nature is important, in that it provides an excellent data base against which comparisons of fatality data for the same population can be made; it also provides us with considerable knowledge about the Canadian public's drinking and driving behavior. Public education campaigns and/or changes in impaired driving legislation can thus be evaluated for effectiveness if we have clearly defined the extent and nature of the problem prior to our particular counter measures program.
As an example of the first use, a non-governmental traffic safety conscious agency was able to compare 1973 driver fatality data for five provinces with the government's national
June 3, 1977

roadside survey exposure data in a collaborative effort, to determine if impaired drivers in certain age groups are over represented in driver fatalities. As a result of this comparison we now know that impaired drivers 16 to 17 years old face a terrible risk on the roads in that they are 165 times as likely to die in an automobile accident as the average non-impaired driver. Youths 18 to 19 years old are 70 times as likely to become fatality statistics when driving impaired. Other persons driving with a relatively high risk when impaired are the 50 year olds and above. They are 39 times as likely to die in a traffic accident when driving impaired, compared to the average non-impaired driver.
The age group with the lowest risk of fatality appears to be the 30 to 34 year olds, but even impaired drivers within this age category are 17 times as likely to be fatally injured in a road accident. Suffice it to say that drivers of all ages are at considerably greater risk of being killed when driving impaired than when driving sober.
One area in which the Canadian government has concerned itself with changing people's attitudes and behavior with respect to drinking and driving is in strict impaired driving legislation. I am pleased to report that further information gathered on the effect of the 1969 breathalizer legislation indicates a drop in traffic fatalities immediately subsequent to its passage. Recently, however, traffic fatality figures have risen, especially for very young drivers. This increase was originally attributed to the lowering of the age of majority between 1970 and 1972 in the various provinces. Recent evidence from a study conducted by the Traffic Injury Research Foundation suggests that the lowering of the drinking age had no substantial impact on this increase in young driver deaths in the provinces studied. Rather the authors more properly attributed the increase to the "rebound" effects of the ".08" legislation in Canada; that is, the impaired driving legislation of 1969 is believed to be less effective now in deterring impaired driving than it was just subsequent to passage.
With this in mind, in January, 1976, when the provisions of Bill C-71 were agreed upon in this House, amendments were made to the legislation which we feel will aid police officers in detecting impaired drivers on the road and result in more fines and convictions for the various Criminal Code offences. Specifically provision was made in the code for roadside breath testing involving the use of a portable device capable of detecting the presence of alcohol on the breath of an apprehended driver. Peace officers can now stop drivers whom they suspect may have been drinking. Previously, law enforcers were restricted by the law to pulling over only those drivers suspected of impairment. That you may argue, is a subtle distinction, but this "reasonable cause" provision should enable peace officers to detect more easily those drivers potentially dangerous to themselves and others, regardless of whether their driving behavior is erratic.
Since before these changes were made a blood alcohol concentration of impaired drivers on average was 170 mg. per cent, or more than twice the statutory limit, the old legislation
Road Safety
was regarded as inadequate for the detection of those drivers at or just above the 80 mg. per cent limit. Not only should the new legislation increase the likelihood of detection, but fines and jail terms have been increased as well which should act as further deterrents. It is up to respective provincial governments to proclaim these laws in force, and up to both provincial and municipal authorities to ensure enforcement of the new legislation.
In order to increase the Canadian public's awareness of these legislative changes the Department of Transport has concerned itself with educating Canadians through public information campaigns designed to inform the public of the seriousness of the alcohol and road safety problem. To this end an information package has been developed, consisting of television, radio and newspaper advertisements, an audiovisual slide presentation, a leaflet which contains the major points outlined in the audio-visual presentation, and an information booklet on alcohol and drinking drivers. This information package was made available in February, 1977, to various traffic safety conscious groups across Canada, to be used in conjunction with on-going community programs.
As hon. members can see, we have made changes, have made representations, and have met with success. We are still trying to reduce the figures the hon. member mentioned to lower levels, preferably to zero. I emphasize again the seriousness of the drinking driver problem. Though 1 represent Canada's grape and wine country, I insist that alcohol and driving do not go together.


Mr. C. Douglas (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, first, I commend the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan) for introducing this motion, and the hon. member opposite me-


Stanley Howard Knowles: The member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Crawford Douglas: I will get it right, especially if I am here as long as the hon. member has been here. I commend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I have found the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth to be a most honest, forthright, and dedicated young man, dedicated to proper principles with which this House ought to be associated. He has shown an honest desire to serve the people of his riding and the people of Canada to the best of his ability.
I am glad we are debating this motion. I think we can serve the ends of the motion by discussing its subject matter on the floor of the House of Commons. We have only one hour available for the discussion. I wish a day were available for the discussion of these vital aspects of highway safety. A great deal hinges on effective highway safety measures.
Hon. members have mentioned areas in which improvement has taken place. The hon. member for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Milne) told the House of improvements which have been made in road building, following discussions with provinces and manufacturers. The hon. member who just resumed his
80016-58 Zi

June 3, 1977
Road Safety
seat spoke of the serious problem of the drinking driver, of young, middle aged and older drivers, and showed how vulnerable are young drinking drivers.
To those hon. members present in this House during this late hour on a Friday afternoon, I wish to speak as a parent and concerned individual who has been deeply associated for many years with some of the questions we are discussing. Before I was elected to this House I had pursued a somewhat varied career, as news editor of a television station, and as a peace officer in Ontario. I can tell you that if there is one thing a police officer hates to investigate it is an accident involving young people. When I say this I note the presence of young people in our galleries. We must involve mothers and fathers and young people in our discussion, for we are discussing a most serious subject, one which can affect lives.
As the hon. member who just resumed his seat said, drinking and driving do not mix. I say to our parents and older people, and to your young people, if they fail to use their seat belts when driving in automobiles they can endanger their own lives. Young and new drivers must be properly educated to the hazards of the road. Although nobody has mentioned it today, one of the important steps taken in the last few years for increasing driver awareness of road hazards is the introduction of school driving courses. Most young drivers in Ontario now find themselves subjected to such courses.
In investigating many of the accidents it was my misfortune to investigate from time to time, I found very often that they involved a young person who had made one mistake. It is that one mistake which we must eliminate. It is that one moment of carelessness while at the wheel of a car. It is that one moment while enjoying good friends and good times, when they fail to realize that that "one last drink"may be just the one last drink that is needed to get them and their friends, and other people they may never have met before, into a situation where death and destruction can result in the flicker of an eyelash.
I am not sure that if we were to complete our discussion and finish our debate on this important subject this afternoon we would really be doing the hon. member for Hamilton-Went-worth the best of favours. I hope, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said, that his persistence in introducing this subject for discussion is rewarded. It may come up only once a year, but it is important that all members use these few moments in which to put forward their honest views to show those who are in the press gallery, and others who are with us late on a Friday afternoon, that we are concerned about this important matter.
There has been increased consultation, as the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth mentioned, through the federal-provincial road safety co-operatives. This will be continued. Compulsory use of safety belts has been introduced in the last two years and this has significantly reduced the number of highway fatalities in those provinces where the use of seat belts has become mandatory. Many departments integrate their thinking on the question of safety, including the Ministry of Health,

the Ministry of Transport, the Department of the Solicitor General, and the Department of Justice. Individual and group efforts along these lines must continue so as to place before the people the importance of the motion which has been presented to us today.
I believe we must also look to more and better public transit as an element which will relieve congestion on our highways in and around the large cities. It is during the rush-hour that many of the more serious accidents take place. Recently it was my pleasure to visit Germany. Their most serious accidents occur on well-constructed four-lane highways when a heavy congestion of traffic is moving at relatively high speeds. Our own traffic acts provide for legal speeds of 55 miles per hour. In Germany the speed of traffic is almost unlimited on some of the super highways. I believe the provinces have done a considerable service to the driving public and Canadians in general by reducing the permitted speed to the 55 mph mark in most cases.
The recent introduction by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) of the mandatory breathalyzer concept and the introduction of a system of spot-checks in conjunction with the provincial solicitors general are important steps forward which will give the police forces throughout this country a handle on a very dangerous situation caused by the actions of impaired drivers who would normally go unnoticed and who could not legally be subjected to that type of test.
There are many other things I would like to have said, Mr. Speaker, but I know other members wish to contribute to the debate. I thank the hon. member for putting forward this motion. It is by this type of debate and publicity that the House can best serve the needs and aspirations of the public in promoting safe driving.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question!


Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, in the very short time remaining I should like to add my thanks to the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan) for placing once again before the House a motion designed to bring our attention to bear on the subject of road or traffic safety. Few of us have not experienced the tragic loss of a friend or someone we knew through traffic accidents. It is one of the most remarkable and tragic aspects of our civilization that though we have managed to eliminate many of the traditional causes of ill health and death, particularly through infection, we have more than replaced them with self-inflicted evils like road and traffic accidents. This is certainly a situation government should not have to put up with and spend a great deal of the country's resources on. At the present time, it is one the federal government is trying to do a great deal about particularly through programs like the new perspective program and the traffic programs which have been mentioned today, in conjunction with the provinces.
We have heard from the previous speakers about a lot of the causes-alcohol, speeding, the youth aspect, and so on, as well as about many of the programs which have been introduced both by volunteer organizations and by governments. A very
June 3, 1977

full program is going on at the present time and I am sure the hon. member who moved this motion appreciates this.
1 should like to underline the point about seat belts. This has been a very strange chapter. The program has been accepted by some and rejected by others. I think it is well on the way now to being a success. 1 should like to underline the point made by my hon. friend from Bruce-Grey. There is a very real role for public transit to play in this area of road safety. Some of us have spoken up on this issue a great deal recently, and we
Road Safety
shall continue to do so. Fortunately in a country as advanced as ours a great deal is being done, both by governments and others.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has expired. It being five o'clock this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to the order made Monday, May 30, 1977.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Special Order.

Monday, June 6, 1977