1978-04-07

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. As Air Canada is planning to move its aircraft painting facilities from Dorval to the virtually unused $5 million hangar in Winnipeg, which is large enough to hold wide-bodied jets such as 747s and LI0-1 Is that now have to be painted in the United States, and also since Air Canada could bid to do painting for other Canadian and American airlines with 747s and LlO-lls, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta):
That this House direct the Minister of Transport to stop blocking the move of personnel and the paint shop to Winnipeg, which will establish a new Canadian industry, creating employment and stopping a flow of Canadian dollars to the U.S., and the planned move be left entirely with Air Canada officials, with no political interference.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for discussion, pursuant to Standing Order 43, requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the request by United States authorities going back to the early 1960s to have Canada establish a wildlife park in the Yukon in conjunction with Alaska, and that the State of Alaska has now designated some 74 million acres as a wilderness area which could be used in conjunction with such a park, and that the recommendation of the Berger commission was to establish such a park, I move,
seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That legislation be introduced in this House in line with Mr. Justice Berger's recommendation for the establishment of the wildlife park in the Yukon as recommended.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Given the accelerated military activity in Angola, where a Marxist regime is employing Cuban mercenaries to brutally crush indigenous opposition to it, and given the disturbing news of the assassination in southwest Africa of the paramount chief of the Herero people, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Cadieu):
That this House request the government, through its representative on the United Nations Security Council, to urge the strongest possible action by the United Nations to restore peace in Angola, where the death toll seems to have surpassed that in Lebanon already, and that at the same time the government of Canada withdraw its representative from the five-nation committee endeavouring through negotiations with South Africa to reduce southwest Africa to the same state of oppression existing in Angola.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask the unani-
4236

April 7, 1978
mous consent of the Elouse to deal with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that Inco has announced a two-week extension of summer lay-offs, and that no level of government was made aware of this until hours before the announcement was made public, making a complete mockery of national economic planning, I move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt):
That this House instruct the government to take over the operation of Inco, rescind the lay-offs and take control of Inco until such time as future plans which affect the Canadian economy have been made clear and the jobs of Canadian workers have been protected.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for discussion, pursuant to Standing Order 43, requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Pierre De Bane (Matane):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to present, jointly with the House leader of the official opposition, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), a motion of the greatest importance which calls for the unanimous consent and support of all hon. members.
Since the Khmer Rouge has taken absolute control of Cambodia, called today the Democratic Republic of Kampuchea-

-the entire world was horrified on learning from many concordant sources about the terrible genocide of two million babies, children, women and men; the deportation of any living soul from the capital of Phnom-Penh and from every city, with no exception made for dying persons confined to hospital; the fact that the government called the communist party of Kampuchea have used children to shoot all those who were executed.
For those reasons, all members of the Canadian parliament express their horror of that genocide, which is one of the woist crimes in the history of mankind, and urge the government of democratic Kampuchea to stop that inconceivable blood bath and Prime Minister Pol Pot to accede immediately to the resolution voted with the support of Canada on March 8, 1977 at the 30th session of the United Nations Human Rights Commission sitting in Geneva and, finally, ask all parliamentarians and governments which maintain relations with our country to protest against that slaughter which has astounded the entire world.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion moved by the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane ), seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John R. Rodriguez: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Motions pursuant to Standing Order 43. The hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert).


John R. Rodriguez: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I stood up to debate the motion put before the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I heard no negative voice; I am sorry.


John R. Rodriguez: I stood up right in my place, Mr. Speaker, after you put the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Then the motion ought to be read entirely.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I agreed with the motion, but I wanted to debate it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand that.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I understand the motion was put and carried.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) has indicated now that he had given his consent to the putting of the question, but I gather he wanted to enter the debate on the motion.


John R. Rodriguez: That is right.


Mr. Speaker:: In the circumstances, having carried the motion, I may have acted precipitously. I was not aware that there was any intention to debate it. In any case, we would have been required to interrupt the debate at this time in order to commence the question period. Therefore, I think the safest course is to allow the motion to have been carried as indicated.

.



April 7, 1978



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Perhaps he could be given an opportunity to return from his "floating" in the House of Commons here.
My question concerns the rising interest rate structure in this country. We know that within the last month the bank rate, and consequently the prime lending rate, in Canada has gone up one full percentage point. Knowing the domestic consequences of high interest rates in this country, would the minister indicate to the House why he has chosen this time to raise interest rates by that amount, bearing in mind there were 229,000 more people out of work in February, even seasonally adjusted, than there were in December of 1976, when the interest rate was last at the 8.5 per cent level, at which time the government thought it wise to lower the rate to stimulate the economy?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, each time the government has raised the interest rate we have given an explanation, and it was clearly indicated in the statement made by the governor of the Bank of Canada. I would like to point out to the hon. member that there is an increase of 250,000 people in the work force over this time last year.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, again to the Minister to Finance, who obviously has little regard for the 229,000 people out of work as compared to December 1976, when the government chose to lower the interest rate in the hope of getting the unemployment figure down.
My second question to the Minister of Finance is: Has the government analysed the impact the higher interest rate structure will have on the sale of unsold homes or homes about to be completed in Canada, bearing in mind that raising the interest rate by 1 per cent will disqualify 25,000 would-be home purchasers in this country or, to put it another way, a total of possibly $1.25 billion in house construction? If the government have considered the impact on the housing industry, would the minister indicate to the House what he feels the consequences will be?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to state to the hon. member, without having all of the figures in front of me, the interest rate was higher a year and a half ago than it is today in Canada. The past year was a good year for housing. Of course, the higher interest rate will have a negative effect on the buyers of houses, but the monetary policies of the government are such that we have no other choice.
Oral Questions


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance, obviously, is acknowledging to the House that it is the international bankers who are calling the domestic tune in Canada as far as our monetary position is concerned.
My final question to the minister is: If he accepts that the higher interest rate is necessary to the country, has the Minister of Finance taken up with the chartered banks and the other lending institutions of this country what one of his predecessors did, that is, to ask those institutions to give preferential treatment to the small businesses and farmers of this country by way of a one-quarter to one-half point lower rate, rather than letting them take the full brunt of the one percentage point increase?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the interest rate on mortgages, for example, has not risen a full point like the rate of the Bank of Canada, and because there is a competitive situation in that market at this time, a lot of funds are available. The competitive factor has kept the situation better under control than we could have expected normally with an increase in interest rates.


BALANCE OF PAYMENTS ACCOUNT
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Since the minister has said that the government's policy of raising interest rates was to deal with the foreign exchange problem, I wonder if the minister could tell us why, as given in the March issue of the Bank of Canada Review, the balancing items in the balance of payments account are substantially higher than ever before?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I take note of the question, for I did not hear the preamble.


James McPhail Gillies: I will put the question another way. In the balance of payments account there is a balancing item which in the past two years has been over $3 billion, almost $4 billion. I am astonished that the minister is not up to date on this matter, because it is so important in making policies. It is incredible to me that the minister does not understand this. I want to know if the department has completed any studies to determine if there is a lot of hot money, to use the vernacular, moving out that the government cannot trace, thus causing the balancing items in the balance of payments account to be so large. You can call it what you will, suitcase money, money of this sort. I am wondering if the minister has discovered that this is, in fact, what is happening and whether it is affecting the balance of payments to the extent that is indicated.
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, when we establish the budgetary or monetary policy of the government, we take all factors into account during the debate.
80033 -55%

April 7, 1978
Oral Questions


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that answer from the Minister of Finance, but how can he say that all factors have been considered when there is an unexplained amount of almost $4 billion? What is that $4 billion? Where is it going? What sort of capital is that? Where is it flowing? Where is it?

[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I take note of the question and I will give the hon. member a detailed answer during the next question period.


INTEREST CHARGES INCURRED IN MAINTAINING A FLOATING DOLLAR
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. In addition to driving up the cost of living in Canada and creating higher levels of unemployment, will the minister confirm to the House that the government's policy of maintaining a rational float, or dirty float or no float of the dollar is actually costing the taxpayers of Canada, in interest charges for the more than S3 billion that the government is borrowing or is planning to borrow, $750,000 a day? Would the minister confirm that?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I know that in order to establish those credit margins we have to pay a certain amount of money; nevertheless, it would be extremely regrettable not to have any credit at all at the present time, given the monetary situation we are in, in order to protect the dollar against any drastic fluctuation of the market. Obviously, given the circumstances, we would have to pay even higher rates than those we can offer at the present time. The hon. member should recognize that the fact that we can so easily obtain credit margins to implement our monetary policy is a tribute to Canadian credit.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, that is witness to the irreverent and harmful gnomes of Zurich. I should like to ask the Minister of Finance to take a very brief period to reply, because he did not a few days ago when I asked him. He referred to the governor of the Bank of Canada.
Since the floating dollar is also actively being pushed by the President of the United States because he recognizes it is creating more jobs than any other particular measure that could be taken in the United States economy, why does the Minister of Finance not also follow the straightforward policy to which the government was committed some months ago and allow the dollar to float, instead of pouring $750,000 per day down the drain to prop it up, because we get more jobs with a floating dollar?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should recognize that the United States system and the Canadian system are not exactly the same. As I have said so many times, the policy of this government is a floating dollar. The intervention we make in the marketplace is to make sure that the dollar floats in a normal way. This is exactly what the other governments do. Just look at the United States situation: not long ago they negotiated some borrowing from the Germans in order to make sure that their dollar could react normally to the international situation.


John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am sure it was inadvertent, but the minister simply and completely distorted reality. Would he confirm that, contrary to what he just said, it has been the Germans and Japanese in recent weeks and months who have been taking action to prop up the United States dollar because of the concern about their exports. They realize that by floating the dollar the United States will make inroads in terms of competition with them.
I repeat to the Minister of Finance, why does the government not stick to the floating dollar, instead of pouring money down the drain to prop it up, because we get more jobs by allowing it to float?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad the hon. member confirms it is good policy that we float the Canadian dollar. Not long ago he was telling me what I had to do to maintain the dollar; today he tells me he likes a dollar that floats and does not mind it. He even implies in his question that he would like a dollar lower than it is now.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Following agreements which have been negotiated recently with some countries on textiles and clothing, would the minister tell the House whether tariffs were raised or reduced and if there was also agreement to lower imports so as to provide better protection for our textile and clothing industries in Canada?


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Some years ago Canadians were importing something like 12 units of clothing per person. We have cut that back to less than eight units per person. The textile industry has responded with renewed investment in Canada, and I am very pleased to say there is more confidence now in the
April 7, 1978

Canadian textile industry than was the case a couple of years ago before we put on quotas. I think we will see more Canadian-manufactured textile goods available to Canadians in the years ahead.
[ Translation]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Following those negotiations, would the minister tell the House whether he has received comments from industry owners and if those comments were favourable, because we are interested to know what their reaction is when things go bad. We also like to know how they feel when the outlook is more promising. Did he receive communications from manufacturers expressing their satisfaction?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, there have been communications between the department and the business community with regard to the Canadian textile industry, as well as the manufacturers. If one looks at the last quarter of 1977, textiles was one industry in which there was an increase in investment. Canadian manufacturers are investing and enlarging their plants, and as a result will be able to serve the Canadian market better in the years ahead.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice, I will direct my question to the all-knowing Deputy Prime Minister. This morning, over CBC radio, Hal Anthony made certain revelations that require to be cleared up. He pointed out that 58 copies of top secret material were made available to sources, some of whom he named. In this connection a prosecution is beginning today in Toronto.
The document in question was so secret that the hon. member for Leeds was approached by General Dare and also by the Solicitor General to produce it. I now ask the minister this question. For what purpose, for what incredible reason, were these various copies sent out to, among others, the chairman of the Public Service Commission, the assistant deputy minister of Finance-as if he did not have enough trouble the way it is-a representative of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the deputy minister of supply and services? This very secret document was sent to those four people, as well as others. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister on what basis this distribution was made.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the right hon. gentleman's comments about my all-knowing capacity, but I am sure I shall disappoint his confidence
Oral Questions
immediately by my answer. My information is that the document in question was circulated in the normal way-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Beautiful.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and the recipients were those who normally receive documents of this kind. I am not in a position to confirm the names of the recipients of any of the documents, but the distribution was a normal one.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if that was a normal distribution, God help security in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I therefore ask the minister-I know how frank he is at all times, and I pay him that tribute too-whether on Monday he will have the Solicitor General, if he is back in the House, table the list of the 58 who received this secret document in the normal way. That would be most helpful, because today a prosecution is taking place.
The contents of some of these documents have been out in the press. Have the 58 been retrieved with the exception of one or two? How many have been returned to the department at the request of the Solicitor General or the government? How many are still outstanding? These are questions that, when answered, will reveal the bona fides of the persecution of the hon. member for Leeds.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, no one would agree with the right hon. member that the hon. member for Leeds has been persecuted in any way. I believe the matter was dealt with by the Minister of Justice and the situation has returned to normal in that area of activity.
I would tell the right hon. gentleman that it is not the intention of the government to make public a list of recipients of security documents. It should appear immediately to the right hon. gentleman that this kind of information would be of interest to intelligence services not friendly to Canada. Who receives security documents in a normal manner is something that should not, and will not, be disclosed because, as 1 have said, it is information of a sensitive nature.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting alibi. However, I would like the minister to explain what interest that security document would have for the chairman of the Public Service Commission, the assistant deputy minister of finance, the representative of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and, above all, Supply and Services. Why would documents like that be sent to those people if they are top secret? I am amazed that the minister says he cannot reveal this information. They apparently threw them up in the air, and 58 picked them up.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

April 7, 1978
Oral Questions


AIRPORTS
Mr. Dennis Dawson (Louis-H6bert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport or, in his absence, to his parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Charlevoix.
Mr. Speaker, following the numerous meetings which took place between hon. members of the Quebec City area and those held with intermediate representatives of the area, and more particularly with the Chamber of Commerce and industry of metropolitan Quebec, I would like to know whether there are any new developments concerning the plans for the extension of the Quebec airport landing strip so that the capital of the province will have an airport which can accommodate aircraft of all sizes. This would certainly help the old capital, the cradle of the French language in North America and it would represent a unique tourist attraction in Canada?


Mr. Charles Lapointe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the minister and myself met several times with hon. members of the area on this subject, as well as with municipal authorities and members of the Chamber of Commerce of Quebec. It is true that with the hotel accommodation and convention facilities available in Quebec city it becomes more and more urgent to extend the present runway. This is why the minister intends to ask very soon for the necessary funds to extend the runway to 9,000 feet. We hope that the amounts will be invested in the area at the very beginning of summer.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the very excellent and penetrating questions put by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, is this not an outstanding example of the screw-ups that this government has participated in over the past few months and a very good example of how this government is falling apart before our very eyes?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think hon. members may recognize a hint of argumentation in that question.


FISHERIES
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the relaxed, albeit rejected, Minister of Fisheries who would like to be minister of fisheries and oceans. Since it now appears obvious that, like an earlier Romeo, he is not to have his way and we will not get legislation setting up a department of fisheries and oceans, I ask him-in this prebudget sitting-if he is prepared to impress upon the Minister of Finance and his colleagues in cabinet the need for additional funds to make up for the years of austerity in small craft harbours which has resulted in neglected wharves and breakwaters across this country.
I ask this question in light of the fact that more people are returning to fishing in the Atlantic provinces and this is a very important matter on the eve of a new fishing season.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Why are they going back?


James Aloysius McGrath: Because there is nothing else to do.


Hon. Rom6o LeBIanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that many citizens, including some of the hon. member's constituents, recognize that the future of the fishery is as bright as I have been predicting it would be. It is very much in recognition of this fact and preparing for it that my predecessor, Mr. Davis, went from a budget of $8 million to $11 million, on average, for small craft harbours to well over $30 million in the past five or six years. This year, by intelligent use of programs and with the co-operation of members of parliament-in particular, my colleague the Minister of Employment and Immigration-we will be putting in $50 million worth of facilities along the coastline of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: In view of the critically high rate of unemployment prevailing in the Atlantic provinces and eastern Quebec, and in view of the intensive labour content in these kinds of works-wharves and breakwaters-is the minister prepared to recommend to his colleagues that we embark upon an accelerated program of building wharves, breakwaters and other onshore facilities to accommodate the many thousand people, especially young people, who want to go fishing and see in the industry the promise that has long been denied them?


Mr. LeBIanc (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my mind is really boggled when I remember the hon. member's speech in which he denounced my department for doing exactly what he is now suggesting, that is, utilizing programs of other departments of government where they can help the fishermen. That we have done, and will be doing this year, to the tune of some $12 million, thanks to the co-operation of my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Obviously, we will continue to do this. We think it is very useful to have
April 7, 1978

fishermen involved in the construction of their own facilities, of which they are justly proud.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that I am having as much trouble communicating with the minister as he is having communicating with his colleagues in government, especially the government Elouse leader.
In view of the undertaking by the Prime Minister that there would be a separate department of fisheries before the end of this parliament-an undertaking made by the government Elouse leader-will the minister tell the House if legislation setting up a separate department of fisheries is to be placed before the House before dissolution? I can assure him he would get the co-operation of my colleagues in the opposition to expedite this legislation. We know how important it is to the fishermen of Canada especially and to the hardworking public servants in his department.


Mr. LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the hon. member for his offer of co-operation. The Prime Minister has designated the deputy minister for the new department. The administrative separation is a de facto situation. We administer the department as two separate entities although in law I cannot at the moment proceed along certain lines. This would have to be confirmed by parliament.
In fact, it is a bureaucratic and administrative matter which should be given the approbation by parliament which the hon. member promises. I have been told by the officers drafting the bill that they hope to have it before the cabinet committee dealing with such matters in a matter of days. It may well be that we will be able to proceed before the House recesses.


AGRICULTURE
Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of Agriculture, but in his absence I will ask it of the acting minister. Is the Department of Agriculture investigating the situation in British Columbia, where the Anti-Inflation Board has disclaimed responsibility for a rollback order that has cut the income of B.C. dairymen?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, while the Minister of Veterans Affairs is taking that question as notice, will he also inquire whether the rollback is an attempt by the federal government to homogenize the returns of all fluid milk producers with those of industrial milk producers in lower cost areas of the country?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: I will also take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions INDUSTRY


RECOMMENDED STOCKPILING OF NICKEL
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Yesterday afternoon, Inco announced the extension of its summer lay-off by two weeks. In view of the fact that this extension of the summer lay-off could have been prevented by stockpiling nickel, as the government has done in the past in the uranium industry, will the minister now recommend to his government the temporary stockpiling of nickel as a method of protecting nickel-producing communities and jobs?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I answered the hon. member yesterday on this question. I might make the further observation that it seems to me to be the absolute height of irresponsibility, indeed, even contemptibility, to suggest that the international problems which have created the difficulties in Sudbury- problems of the market and the heavy inventory-could be solved by the nationalization of Inco.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I have never seen a more callous and cruel minister. However, I want to direct a question to him. In view of the fact that I never suggested the nationalization of Inco in my question to the minister, that irresponsibility and contemptibility for Canadians was displayed by Inco by not consulting the government first of all with respect to the announcement of the two-week extension, and that there was no consultation whatsoever with respect to the workers' representatives of trade unions, will the government follow at least the advice of the CLC and order Inco to rescind the announced extension of the summer lay-offs until such time as the government has had an opportunity to sit down with the company and with the trade union movement to find out how to ameliorate any necessary extension of a lay-off in the summer?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the extent of lay-offs is a most regrettable outcome of the world situation with respect to nickel markets: I have made that clear on a number of occasions. If the hon. member is interested in trying to help those affected by the situation, he would have recognized that the extended lay-off has been moderated very substantially by a special vacation-on-pay arrangement extended by the company to workers at Inco. If the hon. member cannot remember his own Standing Order 43 motion, then someone else will have to remind him of it.


FINANCE
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, now I will turn to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that Inco is

April 7, 1978
Oral Questions
not using the large and generous tax concessions granted to it by the federal government, as we were told, to create jobs for Canadians, is the minister prepared to consider cancelling those advantages or tax concessions and calling in the over $300 million in deferred taxes, because obviously they have not served the Canadian people for whom they were intended?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we can have a tax system which operates on an ad hoc basis like that.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. A few weeks ago I reminded him of the commitment of the government, pursuant to a resolution which I had introduced, to introduce a medal as a military decoration recognizing NATO service. Following his answer of a few weeks ago, is the government now ready to proceed on this matter?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, Mr. Speaker; as a result of the hon. member's representations, considerable work has been done in the department.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Barnett Jerome Danson: Recommendations have come forth. I will not be recommending specifically a NATO medal, but a general service medal which can also be identified for special service, with bars and rosettes for NATO, NORAD or other types of unusual service. I would rather avoid a proliferation of medals which show that service is recognized. I appreciate the hon. member's interest in this matter.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the repeated requests and encouragement given the minister, can he tell the House if he plans to initiate any improvement in the indexing feature of veterans' disability pensions in the next two weeks?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have no information on that matter at this time.


George Harris Hees: That is the long way of saying no.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the hon. Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. Was an interim fisheries agreement for 1978 on the Canada-United States boundary dispute concerning the ownership of Georges Bank recommended to the minister by his advisers, or did they recommend that Canada should take a firm stand and declare the location of the line on Georges Bank? If so, where did the hon. minister propose that the line on Georges Bank should be drawn?
I am sure the minister knows that this question is of vital importance to fishermen on the east coast of Atlantic Canada, since the ownership of the prolific and profitable Georges Bank scallop fish is obviously an issue. Has this discussion bogged down on the problem relating to minerals, or has it bogged down on the problem relating to the fishery resources on the bank?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, the special negotiators who tried to narrow down the differences over many weeks felt they were close to agreement. Because they could not arrive at a final agreement, they felt they should not register failure but, in fact, they should recess and give each side time to review its position, see where movement might be possible, and meanwhile come up with an interim agreement.
Basically, the problem was one involving the fishery resource. The discussions will continue at a lower level than the special negotiators. Both sides are reassessing their positions. Frankly, I think the negotiators had made so much progress that it would be too bad if their efforts were not sustained over a period of time. I think there is hope for an agreement.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, the minister rather skirted the main point of my question, which I will put again.


An hon. Member:: He is good at that.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: What recommendations were made to the minister by his Canadian advisers concerning this problem? Did they, or did they not, recommend that the minister and the Canadian government should define where the line should be drawn, and take that stand? What were the recommendations to the minister by his appointed advisers on this matter?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, if we had backed away from our basic position, there would have been an agreement, but obviously that type of agreement is not satisfactory to us. We were attempting to find a way around the difficulty regarding where the line should be drawn, what stocks of fish move in and out of the Canadian and American zones, who should take them, and at what time. The talks did not end successfully on these issues. The fact is that they were recessed; they were not given up. There is still considerable
April 7, 1978

hope that both sides will arrive at an advantageous agreement over the long term.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Some weeks ago, while speaking privately to the minister, I indicated to him the concern of many farmers, particularly in Ontario, over the fact that when they purchase gasoline for use on their farms and to store in bulk tanks, they are being forced to pay a price of up to more than ten cents a gallon than if they were to buy their gasoline at local gas company retail outlets.
Has the minister had an opportunity to investigate this problem? If so, can he make any suggestions which might bring some relief to farmers?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I followed up that question after the hon. member raised it with me in the House. Farmers in Ontario are entitled to federal and provincial rebates totalling 29 cents per gallon on gasoline for unlicensed vehicles. Consequently, in net terms, we are aware of no situation where farmers pay as much or more than consumers. But it is true there are variations from city to city and from town to town. I cannot say much more at this time.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware of the fact that the price being charged farmers by companies supplying their bulk tanks is ten cents a gallon more than would be charged if the farmers had their tanks filled at local gas stations and also would receive a rebate from the government if the assistance were made available to them?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, we have been told that that has been happening in some cases and it has been due to the price war between the different oil distributors. This varies from one part of Ontario to another. I do not know what we can do about that: it is part of the free market system where there is competition between them.


ACTION TAKEN BY DEPARTMENT AGAINST MISLEADING ADVERTISERS
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Is it a fact that the marketing practices branch of the minister's department has not acted on complaints received in the past year on Post Office advertising of expected dates of mail delivery on its red, white and blue mail boxes for local, regional and national delivery, nor has it acted on the recent complaint lodged by the CLC against Employment and Immi-
Oral Questions
gration Canada's advertising of UIC regulations, because it is the view of the minister's department that it cannot sue another federal government department or federal agency because it is another branch of the Crown?


William Warren Allmand: This is the first time those complaints have been brought to my personal attention, so I cannot comment on them. But I am advised that Crown agencies and the Crown are exempted from the misleading advertising sections of the combines act.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Since the minister has never reprimanded or prosecuted any federal department or agency, is there now any mechanism in effect that has allowed the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to publicly reprimand another federal department or agency should it indulge in inaccurate or misleading advertising?


William Warren Allmand: A few days ago I answered a question in the House indicating that we are developing, with the provinces, a code of ethics for lottery advertising, for example. Lotteries are run by Crown agencies. We are re-examining our whole policy in this area on advertising by Crown agencies, and we will take into consideration the complaints put forward by the hon. member.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: My question is for the Minister of Labour. During the committee stage of Bill C-8 there was considerable discussion with respect to the exemption for averaging provisions of local grain elevator agents. Does the minister have anything to tell us at this time with respect to any action he has been able to take in this regard, or any action he proposes to take?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In view of the representations made by the hon. member for Vancouver South, members of my party and of the official opposition, 1 have indicated that I am prepared to grant a further extension of the exemption for a period of six months to allow the unions and the grain country elevator operators to try to come to some solution which they themselves can work out.


CONSORTIUM TO DEVELOP THIRD ATHABASCA OIL SANDS PLANT
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and
4244

April 7, 1978
Oral Questions
Resources. Some weeks ago Shell Oil of Canada announced its intention to form a consortium to develop a third oil sands plant in Athabasca, but made it very clear that their attempts to form this consortium would depend on the commercial arrangement made with the government. Elave any negotiations started yet between Shell Oil and its consortium with any members of the government?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I believe there have been a number of discussions among Shell, some members of the consortium and my officials. I have had discussions myself with the president of Shell. I believe the major negotiations that are taking place at present are within the consortium itself.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Would the minister pay me the honour of looking into a proposal that I made to the then minister of finance, the Hon. John Turner, with regard to Syncrude and how this type of proposal could be financed at much less cost to the final consumer than at present. Have any of his officials made this proposal known to him?


Alastair William Gillespie: I have not seen the proposal in the form that the hon. member has described. I would be very pleased if he would send me a copy, and I will take a look at it.


TAX STRUCTURE, MARKETING AND EXPORT OF OIL SANDS PRODUCT
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether he has made any commitment to Shell Oil with regard to the tax structure, marketing and export of their product should they go ahead with the plan. I understand that some of these matters have been responsible for delaying a decision on whether or not it should go ahead, and when it should begin. Perhaps the minister should clarify the status of the matter at this time.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, a range of options has been discussed with senior officers of the Shell corporation, but no commitments have been made.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, would the minister indicate when he feels he will have made up his mind as to the kind of commitments he can make to these people, in order that the kind of stable environment that is required may be established so we could proceed with developments such as this which are of great importance to the country in the long run?


Alastair William Gillespie: Discussions are going on. I hope we will be able to conclude them in the relatively near future.


INDUSTRY
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce: it has to do with the GATT negotiations, particularly with regard to clothing. I shall read one sentence from the Financial Post dated tomorrow. It reads:
The new import regime, whose details have been revealed privately to textile and clothing industry executives by Canadian negotiators, appears to have one manufacturer's approval, particularly in the primary textile sector.
I ask the minister if these comments are true and, if they are true, which companies have received this privileged information? If there are companies that have received it, on what grounds have they received it, when others have not and MPs have not?
Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): That sentence is referring to negotiations which are taking place with seven of the major exporters of textiles to Canada. They export to Canada about 80 per cent of our imports. Negotiations have been going on with these seven countries; that is what the sentence in the article is referring to.


John Raymond Ellis: Are our Canadian negotiators telling the producers of other countries what our plans are at GATT, and not giving this information to Canadian producers?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have the article before me. The hon. member is referring to GATT negotiations. The first part of the article reads:
Last week Ottawa concluded a three-year agreement with South Korea which, like similar deals already reached with Hong Kong (unofficially), Taiwan-
It goes on to name the Philippines, China, Poland, Romania. Those are the negotiations which have taken place and to which the latter part of the article refers in the sentence which the hon. member read. It does not refer to the GATT negotiations.


NATIONAL PARKS
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development: it concerns the establishment of a wilderness park which has been proposed from time to time going back to the 1960s when the United States proposed one in conjunction with Canada. Alaska has now dedicated 74 million acres as their part of that park.
Can the minister now explain why this government has yet to move on the establishment of this park, in spite of the recommendations of the Berger commission and in spite of the pressure from the U.S. since the 1960s?
April 7, 1978


Hon. Janies Hugh Faulkner (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is misinformed. Several months ago I announced in Yellowknife that consultations would be undertaken in the north around six new wilderness areas: one was in the north of the Yukon. Since that time, there have been meetings with the people of Old Crow and other people interested in the north Yukon wilderness area. I hope to be able to proceed with it, after the process of public consultation, as quickly as possible.
I think I should add that when I was in Alberta, I had lunch with Governor Hammond and talked about the possibility of an international park. He seemed quite sympathetic to that, and I am sympathetic to it. It seems to be the only rational way to deal with the migration of Porcupine caribou herds.


ELDORADO NUCLEAR-CONSTRUCTION OF URANIUM REFINERY IN SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who is consulting the Postmaster General. My question relates to a place called Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, which is not in Alberta: possibly the Postmaster General was consulting him on that.
In respect of Eldorado Nuclear Limited, has a decision been made regarding the construction of a uranium refinery outside Saskatoon, and will this refinery have provision for the production of enriched uranium for export purposes?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, no decision has been made on that matter.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, will the minister let the House and the people of Saskatchewan know when a decision is to be made in this regard?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any likelihood of an early decision on this matter. Of course, in respect of uranium policy generally, the Canadian government is waiting for the Bayda commission report and the response of the Saskatchewan government.


POINTS OF ORDER
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order in respect of a matter which occurred earlier this day.
Point of Order-Mr. W. Baker
You will recall that the House of Commons passed a motion under Standing Order 43 dealing with the dreadful situation in Cambodia. I was delighted and, indeed, proud to second the motion of the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane), joining with him and my colleagues in this regard.
One of the thoughts which comes to mind is that it is one thing for the House of Commons to pass a motion, but it may be another thing to carry out the intent of that motion. I know that in the mind of the hon. member for Matane he hopes something outside this chamber will occur.
My point of order is directed in part, sir, to you as the First Commoner, and in part to my colleague, the government House leader. It has to do with what will happen in respect of this matter following the passage of that motion. When I sit down I hope the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen), who is the Acting Prime Minister today, will assure the House-I am going to stop until I have his attention because I think it is important. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie), who is talking with the Deputy Prime Minister, but I think it is important in respect of this motion under Standing Order 43 that the House knows that something from the government's point of view will take place, since the motion was unanimously passed by the House.
It is my hope that the Deputy Prime Minister can assure members of the House today that he, in fact, will bring this motion to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) and his department, particularly having regard to the fact that the motion called on all governments which have diplomatic relations with Canada to join with the intent of the motion. I hope we can get that assurance from the Deputy Prime Minister.
Now in respect of that part directed to you, Mr. Speaker, I understand it is the intention, and certainly 1 share in this, and I hope it is your intention as well, if your office permits, to consult with all parliamentary bodies with which our parliament has exchanges from time to time, in order to bring to their attention the will of this House in the hope that those parliaments will know how strongly this parliament feels in respect of that situation in Cambodia.
I do not want to embarrasss you, sir, but I think this is appropriate for consideration by way of a point of order today. I know it is the intention of the hon. member for Matane, and I share that intent and feeling with all my colleagues in the House, because this is a very serious matter and its existence is a blot on the human landscape, that free parliaments everywhere should speak out against the murder of innocent people in such political situations.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) and the department have been made aware of the motion, and support it entirely. As we do not have diplomatic relations with democratic Kampuchea we will have to work with and express
80033 - 5614

April 7, 1978
Point of Order-Mr. Rodriguez our views through the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, which we are already doing. I would say there is evidence of increasing international pressure to improve the situation and ameliorate the violence to human rights in Cambodia.


MR. RODRIGUEZ-RIGHT TO DEBATE S.O. 43 MOTION CONDEMNING COMMUNIST ATROCITIES IN KAMPUCHEA
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding a matter which took place earlier this morning in respect of a Standing Order 43 motion placed before the House by the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane). When the question was put I agreed with the principle contained in the motion and I said "yes", but I did not forswear my right to debate the motion. I believe the principles contained in that motion are worthy of debate.
Prior to the calling of question period I stood in my place to be recognized in order to particpate in the debate for which the Standing Orders provide. Therefore I submit, Your Honour, the motion which was agreed to be put to the House superseded the question period in respect of debate. The precedent of this House is that in the past we had a vote on a bill put to the House for first reading, and when the vote went right into the question period, the question period was delayed until the vote had been taken. I am prepared to debate the principle involved in this particular motion. I agree with that principle, and I think it is worthy of consideration by this House in the fullest context.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Nickel-Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) has called the attention of the House to a problem relating to the whole operation of Standing Order 43. May I say at the outset, for the record, that what has happened on a technical basis is, whether it has been well done or not, that the question on the motion has been before the House, it has been carried, and it has been so entered as having been carried. The matter is, therefore, finalized. Whether that was a precipitous action by the Chair in the circumstances, remains open for discussion. The fact is that this action was taken and, therefore, it is concluded.
However, the hon. member raises two other aspects of applications made pursuant to Standing Order 43. The first is, of course, that there is a popular impression that what is being sought in every circumstance is not simply unanimous consent to introduce a motion, but unanimous consent for the passage of the motion. In fact, the hon. member has highlighted that what the House is being asked to do is put the motion before the House and then, of course, to enter into debate on it if that is the desire of members of the House.
The fact that debate occurs so rarely in these circumstances does not in any way diminish the correctness of the hon. member's point. In fact what was done was that consent was given, the motion was put, and at that moment the motion was
[Mr. MacEachcn.J
debatable. If the Chair missed the intention of the hon. member for Nickel Belt to debate the motion I must accept responsibility for that. However, again I say it is extraordinary when these matters are debated.
The hon. member for Nickel-Belt raises another point that I do think we will have to consider, and that is that once a debate is launched during the period of time set aside for motions to be put pursuant to Standing Order 43, and this is a very important point, is that debate to be interrupted by the commencement of the question period? If it is not to be interrupted by the commencement of the question period can we, under our Standing Orders, in fact have a question period at all, since it is called for on this day from 11.15 a.m. until 12 noon and on other days from 2.15 until 3 o'clock in the afternoon?
These two questions are most important. Again I suggest that the matter has been resolved; whether satisfactorily or not, it has been finalized. I do thank the hon. member for raising again the two difficulties to which I think the Committee on Procedure and Organization, early in another parliament or at another session of this parliament, will certainly have to give its attention. That is my hope.


MR. HNATYSHYN-REPETITION OF MINISTERIAL SPEECH ON SECOND READING OF BILL C-29
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order in respect of a debate which took place yesterday on the Farm Credit Corporation Bill, and a rather unusual and peculiar situation that occurred. I refer to the fact that during the course of debate yesterday, commencing at page 4227 of Hansard, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) rose to address this particular bill, and at that time stated to the House in the first sentence of his speech that he was addressing the House on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan).
I rose, during the course of the remarks just after that to point out to the House that the Minister of Agriculture had, in fact, addressed the House when commencing debate on second reading of this bill. The peculiar part is that when I look at the remarks made by the Minister of Agriculture, starting at page 3957 of Hansard on March 20, 1978, and the remarks made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs last night, the two speeches are identical. They are exactly the same speech made in connection with this one bill.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to indicate to us whether the time of the House can be usurped and wasted by this kind of contrivance whereby a minister repeats a speech that has already been made. I tried to bring this to the attention of the House and I was met with scorn, shouting, interjections on the part of the other side of the House, and the final indignity, which was that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Caron) stood in his place and categorically stated that the Minister of Agriculture had not spoken on this particular bill. I say that the parliamentary secretary and the
April 7, 1978

hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) misled this House, because there is no question if you peruse the debates on March 20, 1978. The identical speech that was given last night was made by the Minister of Agriculture on a previous date.
One speech from the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker, is enough to put you to sleep. A second speech is more than the body can stand.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there is one point that has to be made in connection with the comments made by the hon. member to explain the situation in which the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) found himself acting as the Minister of Agriculture. When the bill was called to follow the anti-inflation bill and the vote on the anti-inflation bill had taken place, the Minister of Agriculture was not in Ottawa. He was in another place, and the Minister of Veterans Affairs was acting for him and had been advised that the second reading speech had not been given by the Minister of Agriculture. On that basis he presented the second reading speech. I think it is unfortunate that the Minister of Veterans Affairs had been misled in this way. I am sure the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) is not complaining about repetition as an obstacle to speechmaking in the House of Commons because, if repetition were an obstacle, then the House would have been adjourned several months earlier.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The point rarely arises in such a graphic illustration, as given by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and I realize the validity of his point. It is one that would have had validity as a matter of order during the course of debate on second reading, in respect to that particular measure. The point is well taken. In fact it raises two matters that are prohibited, not simply that of being repetitious but also the fact of reading a speech has another interesting connotation.
However, the President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), has raised the difficulty that the Chair faces in attempting to enforce in a uniform and consistent way those provisions in our practice here. In any case, the point is well taken but, regrettably, is behind us.


PRIVILEGE
Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises out of what was said by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn). I want to point out that if the suggestion made by the hon.
Business of the House
member for Saskatoon-Biggar is to apply to members on this side of the House, it ought to apply to members on the other side as well, particularly the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie).


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Murta:: Mr. Speaker, my point of order, I hope, will facilitate work in the House of Commons over the next day or so. I understand that we will be debating Bill C-8 at the present time under a -


Walter David Baker: There has been no time allotted yet.


Jack Burnett Murta: Well, I understand we are going to be debating Bill C-8, which is the labour bill. On behalf of my party we would like to obtain agreement that the farm credit legislation that has been brought in will be passed either by Friday or early Monday. We have had discussions with the chairman of the agricultural committee, to the extent that if we could get the legislation into the agricultural committee on Tuesday it could be arranged that it pass third reading Tuesday night before the budget debate starts. It is an important piece of legislation.
The Farm Credit Corporation is virtually out of money, or it will be by the middle of April. We are certainly prepared to move this bill through all stages as quickly as possible.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we would be willing to regard the debate on second reading of the Farm Credit Act as finished, endorse the bill, and send it to committee right now.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: On the point raised by the hon. member with respect to the farm credit bill, if it is the desire of the House to send the bill to committee now without debate, I will call it first and then we can go on with the arrangements that have been made with respect to Bill C-8.


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, with respect to my Standing Order 43 motion I just want to have the assurance that the unanimous will of our parliament will be channeled to all countries with which we have either diplomatic relations or that we recognize. As for the way of doing it-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I thought the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) made that abundantly clear.

April 7, 1978
4248________________________________________
Order Paper Questions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 60 I request that you designate the necessary order of the day to permit the budget presentation on Monday night.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 160, 829, 1,092, 1,116, 1,319 1,320 and 1,425.
[ Text]


Mr. Marshall: 1.	Did the advertisement "Join the Coast Guard" appear in any Canadian newspapers and, if so, which ones?
2.	Have any applications to join the Coast Guard been received from residents in Newfoundland?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: 1. The official recruitment, for the 1978 Campaign for Officer-Cadets of the Canadian Coast Guard, commenced October 3, 1977 and terminated January 31, 1978. The following Canadian magazines were employed: "Canada & the World," "Miss Chatelaine", "Today's Generation", "Campus". All of the above-mentioned were printed for general distribution or sale, across Canada, and were directed toward readers at the high school level. As of November, 1977, advertisements also appeared in the following Canadian newspapers: Granby, La Voie de l'Est; Chicoutimi, Le Quotidien; Edmunston, Le Madawaska; Les Echo Abitibiens; Thetford Mines, Le Progres de Thetford; Sept-Iles, L'Avenir & Sept-Ues Le Journal; Rouyn-Noranda, La Frontiere; Riviere-du-Loup, Le Saint-Laurent; Rimouski, Le Rimouskois; Matane, La Voie Gaspesienne; Levis, La Tribune de Levis-Metro; Cowansville, Le Yamaska; Gagnon-ville/Shefferville, Le Nordic; Cap-De-La-Madeleine, Hebdo-du-Cap; Victoria, Colonist-Times; Vancouver, Province & Sun; Calgary Albertan; Calgary Herald; Edmonton Journal; Saskatoon Star Phoenix; Regina Leader-Post; Winnipeg Free Press; Montreal Star; Moncton Times Transcript; Moncton L'Evangeline; Toronto Star; Toronto Globe and Mail; Montreal Le Devoir; Montreal La Presse; Quebec Le Soleil; St. John's Telegram; St John's Daily News; Halifax Chronicle-

Herald & Mail Star; Saint John Telegram-Journal & Evening Times; Charlottetown Guardian-Patriot; The Montreal Star; The Guardian-Patriot, Vancouver; Canadian Mazazine; Weekend Magazine/Perspectives.
Yes. In total, 37 applications were received from Newfoundland residents, 27 of these being eligible to write the Public Service Examination required for admission to the college.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Has the government made any studies of the effect that the proposed increases in St. Lawrence Seaway tolls will have on (a) revenue to the government from Seaway tolls (b) the number of ships using the Seaway (c) the level of pilotage fees taken in on the Seaway (d) the economy of the St. Catharines-Niagara region as a result of decreased shipping through the Welland Canal (e) the continued cost competitiveness of the Seaway over alternate modes of transporation (0 employment in Canada as a result of decreased shipping activity (g) income to grain producers and (i) if so, what were the results (ii) if not, for what reason?
2.	Will the government consider holding public hearings on the proposed toll increases as did the U.S. Seaway Authority?
3.	In deciding to impose toll increases on the St. Lawrence Seaway, did the government consider that all Provincial Premiers, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Labour Congress and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture are opposed to the increases and, if so, for what reasons did the government ignore such opposition?


Otto Emil Lang: The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority advises as follows: 1. (a) The federal government would receive in 1978 a return of $6.25 million on its investment. In 1977, parliament voted $36.5 million to cover interest on debt and the operating deficit of the Welland canal. The net change would therefore amount to $42.75 million, (b) No change anticipated in the number of vessels, (c) Pilotage fees should not be affected, (d) No decreased shipping being anticipated, the economy of the St. Catharines-Niagara region should not be affected, (e) The present cost advantages of the seaway over other modes of transportation are such that increased tolls will not affect the competitiveness of the system, (f) No decreased shipping activity being anticipated, employment in Canada should not be affected, (g) Proposed toll of 2.2c. per bushel of wheat (65c. per ton) or 0.8c. per bushel (25c. per ton) more represents the extent to which the income of the producers would be affected, (i) The Canada and U.S. governments have carried out comprehensive studies of the effect that the proposed higher Seaway tolls might have on the country's economy and are satisfied that the effect would be minimal, (ii) Not applicable. As stated in (i) studies were carried out.
2.	The government considered but did not hold any public hearings because the interested parties made their views known through numerous meetings with the minister and officials of the Department of Transport and the Seaway Authority, as well as with officials of other federal departments. Many briefs were submitted expressing the concern of
April 7, 1978

the users of the seaway which led to a number of changes to the original proposal.
3.	Some provinces have argued in favour of toll increases. The government recognized that any toll increase may be resisted for various reasons by interested parties. The numerous meetings and the analysis briefs referred to in part 2 of this reply were conducted for the purpose of considering such representations. As one result of this process, the Minister of Transport announced on December 16, 1977 that the toll increase would be phased in over a period of three years on the basis that only 50 per cent of the increased amounts will be applied at the start of the 1978 navigation season and 75 per cent at the start of the 1979 season. The total increase will not come into effect until the start of the 1980 navigation season.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	(a) What incentives have been offered to the 363 Air Canada head office staff who have been induced to take early retirement (b) what is the total cost to Air Canada of the programme?
2.	What is the rationale for the early retirement programme?
3.	How many retirements are targeted under the programme over the next five years?
4.	Were employees, who are now signed up for the early retirement programme, given the voluntary choice of retirement or continued employment?


Otto Emil Lang: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. (a) Management employees eligible for early retirement under the company's pension plan were offered scaled severance payments which took into account years of service and age. (b) This financial data will be made available with the tabling of the 1977 annual report.
2.	To meet a 10 per cent target in management staff reduction.
3.	The voluntary programme was a one-time offer and there are no future retirements planned under such a programme.
4.	Yes.


Mr. Rodriguez: For each fiscal year since 1970, what amount was spent in the Constituency of Nickel Belt by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and those agencies that report to it?


Mr. Donald Wood (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: 1970/71, Nil; 1971/72, Nil; 1972/73, $79,460; 1973/74, $69,649; 1974/75, $248,183; 1975/76, $24,840; 1976/77, $767,061. From April 1, 1977 to January 31, 1978, $319,642. The reply for the Atlantic Development Council and the Canadian Council on Rural Development is as follows: Nil. The reply for the Cape Breton Development Corporation is as follows: Not applicable.
Order Paper Questions OLYMPIC COINS


Mr. Towers: 1.	How many gold double-struck Olympic coins were authorized?
2.	How many such coins were produced?
3.	(a) At what price were the coins sold to the public (b) what price did dealers pay for them?
4.	As of January 4, 1977, how many of the coins were unsold?
5.	What are the latest figures on the number of coin orders unfilled?
6.	Were unsold coins disposed of and, if so, in what manner?


Hon. J.-Gilles Lamontagne (Postmaster General):: 1. The
Olympic Coin Program was authorized to strike up to 350,000 gold double-struck coins (i.e. 22k gold proof coins).
2.	See below.
3.	The direct sales price was $153.50 each including mailing costs. There were a variety of dealer discount arrangements and dealers were free to sell coins at market value. Some developed special cases or presentation cases.
4.	Sales in the report to parliament issued September 30, 1977 were 337,190 coins. This figure will be subject to adjustment up or down as the program winds up.
5.	All coin orders on which the Olympic Coin Program has received payment have been fulfilled.
6.	Any unsold proof gold coins will be melted down.


Mr. MacKay: 1.	How many ex-Royal Canadian Air Force personnel are now employed by the Department of Transport?
2.	How many are ex-pilots in key positions in the Department?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. The information requested is not readily available and to provide an accurate reply would entail a lengthy manual search of all Transport Canada employees' personal files (22,000 people), which cost in manpower and time would be excessive and prohibitive.
2. There are ten ex-pilots in SX positions in Transport Canada.


Mr. Marshall: What is the breakdown, by species and with amounts, of all fish products imported in the year (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78?


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as Statistics Canada is concerned:

April 7, 1978
Order Paper Questions
Canadian Imports of Fish Products, by Main Species, 1976-77
Quantities (Q) in metric tones, product weight; Values (V) in thousand dollars
SPECIES and	1976	1976 (Jan. Sept.)	1977 (Jan. Sept.)


[Stage Direction]
Q	V	Q	V	Q	VCOD	1,790	3,147	1,370	2,404	1,891	2,747Fresh or frozen	1,790	3,147	1,370	2,404	1,891	2,747HADDOCK and HAKE	2,539	3,161	1,578	1,892	2,267	2,257Fresh or frozen	2,539	3,161	1,578	1,892	2,267	2,257HALIBUT	965	3,137	661	1,945	316	1,260Fresh or frozen	965	3,137	661	1,945	316	1,260SALMON	3,495	10,305	2,250	6,253	5,299	7,166Fresh or frozen	1,505	4,835	1,088	3,213	2,970	4,581Canned	1,990	5,470	1,162	3,040	2,329	2,585SPECIES and	1976	1976 (Jan. Sept.)	1977 (Jan. Sept.)	PRODUCTS	Q	V	Q	V	Q	VTUNA	12,903	23,712	8,212	16,163	11,943	23,432Fresh or frozen	3,883	2,765	1,450	1,075	6,251	5,591Canned, flake pack	3,577	7,988	2,698	5,736	1,782	5,961Canned, not specified	5,443	12,959	4,064	9,352	3,910	11,880TROUT	701	1,782	516	1,233	709	2,180Fresh or frozen	701	1,782	516	1,233	709	2,180HERRING	565	779	366	476	390	589Pickled	289	362	221	257	108	152Canned	276	417	145	219	282	437ANCHOVY	233	721	183	531	333	1,303Canned	233	721	183	531	333	1,303SARDINE	1,277	2,668	748	1,529	1,041	2,106Canned	1,277	2,668	748	1,529	1,041	2,106SEAFISH, NOT	-	30,167	22,168	28.587SPECIFIED	Fresh or frozen	14,365	14,335	12,275	11,281	17,639	12,332Fresh or frozen,	5,933	7,716	4,502	5,603	7,483	10,789steaks and blocks	Smoked	238	380	194	303	228	319Salted or dried	1,693	3,625	937	1,874	940	2,210Pickled	87	80	59	58	47	40Canned	2,601	1,715	2,305	1,260	1,025	1,577Liver and Visceral oil	-	213	160	228Fish and marine	299	233	271	208	264	173animal oil	Meal	962	309	792	243	406	128Foods and feeds	2,323	1,561	1,080	1,178	333	791FRESHWATER FISH,	1,114	1,876	730	1,029	1.789	1.149NOT SPECIFIED	Fresh or frozen	1,114	1,876	730	1,029	1,789	1,149CRAB	836	3,462	483	2,119	1,107	3,468Fresh or frozen	811	3,389	463	2,063	917	3,369Canned	25	73	20	56	190	99LOBSTER	2,524	23,401	1,782	17,051	2,245	17,523Fresh or frozen	2,524	23,401	1,782	17,051	2,245	17,523OYSTER	1,829	4,379	1,087	2,799	1,298	4,245Fresh or frozen	597	1,015	217	524	271	599Canned	1,232	3,364	870	2,275	1,027	3,646SPECIES and	1976	1976 (Jan. Sept.)	1977 (Jan. Sept.)	PRODUCTS	Q	V	Q	V	Q	VSHRIMP and PRAWN	11,002	60,585	8,205	41,715	7,399	46,908Fresh or frozen	8,607	47,678	6,427	32,585	5,849	35,433Canned	2,395	12,907	1,778	9,130	1,550	11,475CLAM	2,387	2,947	1,538	1,821	1,254	2,274Canned	2,387	2,947	1,538	1,821	1,254	2,274SHELLFISH, NOT SPECIFIED	2,867	6,628	1,943	4,533	2,633	5,905Fresh or frozen	2,094	4,128	1,467	2,830	2,052	3,602Canned	773	2,500	476	1,703	581	2,303TOTAL IMPORTS	-	182,857	-	125,661	-	153,099

April 7, 1978
[Stage Direction]
Source: Statistics Canada, Catalogue 65-007, imports by Commodities.
Note: Current statistics only available to September, 1977.
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 770?


Mr. Rynard: 1.	What is the cost per pound for nickel alloy tubing and plate for process heat exchangers from (a) International Nickel Company of Canada (b) off shore sources?
2.	In which countries are the off shore sources located?
3.	Is nickel alloy tubing and plate processed in Canada and, if not, for what reason?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the answer is as follows: 1. Prices of nickel alloy tubing and plate for heat exchangers vary widely according to product specifications. Therefore, complete specifications would be required to obtain a price from suppliers.
2.	Nickel alloy tubing and plate are produced in the United States, Germany and the United Kingdom. Tubing is produced in Japan and Sweden.
3.	Types of nickel alloy tubing for which there is a significant domestic market are processed in Canada. However, many nickel alloy tubing and plate products are not processed in Canada because the domestic market is too small to support a plant of minimum economic size, and major export markets are protected by significant tariffs.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the government has any intention of responding to question No. 1,233 which was placed on the order paper on January 26. Questions Nos. 1,236
Business of the House
and 1,237 were also placed on the order paper on that date. I can understand that it might take some time to obtain the material requested but it has now been more than two months since these questions were put down.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I shall indeed take the request of the hon. member into consideration but I should like to take this opportunity to mention that, as at April 5, that is the day before yesterday, 855 questions had been answered in total, that is 56.3 per cent of all questions on the order paper, which is an excellent record.


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I have just read again the reply I gave the House earlier and find that I overlooked something. As I would hate to mislead the House, could I make a correction now?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, at the end of my reply a while ago, I said certain amounts would be invested in the area early this summer: I meant early in the summer of 1979.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Allan Joseph MacEachen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might refer to consultations which have taken place with respect to Bill C-8 which I had intended to call first today until I heard the suggestion made by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta), and which I will call in accordance with that suggestion. At the same time I should like to obtain an order of the House with respect to the agreement on Bill C-8, namely, that we would commence the bill and complete the report stage and third reading in a period not longer than four hours.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That represents the agreement to which we were a party, and we would be happy if such a House order were made.


Walter David Baker: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I should like to confirm the agreement on behalf of the official opposition.

April 7, 1978
Canada Labour Code


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the consultations bore fruit: we have expressed our agreement.


Mr. Speaker:: It is, then, the intention that an order of the House be made that upon entering into debate at this time on Bill C-8, which is now at the report stage, report stage and third reading would be concluded in a period of not longer than four hours. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Now, Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could call, in accordance with the agreement earlier entered into, the second reading of Bill C-29 to amend the Farm Credit Act. I am calling it on the understanding it will be passed without debate and sent to the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, March 20, consideration of the Motion of Mr. Whelan that Bill C-29, to amend the Farm Credit Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Walter David Baker: Parliament lives!


CANADA LABOUR CODE
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-8, to amend the Canada Labour Code, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
John R. Rodriguez: Motion No. 1.
-That Bill C-8, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, be amended in Clause 28 by
(a)	striking out line 21 at page 19
(b)	striking out line 31 at page 19 and substituting the following therefor:
"to the safety or health of the employee; and
(c)	imminent danger to the health and safety of an employee includes a
condition in any place where any radiation safety level set by either the federal
or provincial government has been exceeded."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to put forward very briefly my reasons for seeking to amend this particular clause. The amendment would put in place the right of workers to refuse work in circumstances where their health or safety is in danger.
While the bill covers workers who are under federal jurisdiction, there is one group of workers who have consistently been caught in a jurisdictional jungle. I refer to the uranium workers, those who work in the refineries or processing plants as well as to those who work in the mines. They may come within the scope of regulations set by a federal agency, the Atomic Energy Control Board, or they may come under provincial jurisdiction since the provinces also set safety standards. Inspectors who attempt to enforce regulations are invariably caught in an administrative jungle. The mine owners claim on occasion that they are under provincial rather than federal jurisdiction-or they may argue the reverse depending upon which safety standards are less stringent. This whole question of jurisdiction in the field of safety will become increasingly contentious, and now is the time to eliminate some of these jurisdictional quarrels wherever possible. It seems to me the best way to do this is to say to the workers, "It does not matter who sets the safety standards; whichever safety level is the more stringent is the one you may insist upon." This is the first step to be taken in eliminating at least some of the underbrush from this regulatory jungle.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, we have had consultations with the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) and we are essentially in agreement. I believe the official opposition is in agreement also, as there have been discussions with the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser). I wonder if this motion could stand for a few minutes in order that I may double-check the precise wording because some changes have been made. I am prepared to elaborate on them now, but as a result of our discussions we are having it put in precise form referring to the precise clauses that are to be amended. These will be put on the hon. member's desk. I am sure he will agree with them and agree that they reflect the discussion. If we could have some time for that type of verification, I would appreciate it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the suggestion of the minister. If hon. members agree, I suggest we suspend discussion on motion No. 1 and go to motion No. 2 in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John R. Rodriguez: Motion No. 2.

April 7, 1978

That Bill C-8, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, be amended in Clause 29 by striking out lines 11 to 48 at page 20, lines 1 to 42 at page 21 and lines 1 to 23 at page 22 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) At least one-half of the members of a committee shall be appointed by the bargaining agent for the employees or, where there is no bargaining agent, elected by the employees of the work, undertaking or business, and the remaining members of the committees shall be appointed by the employer.
(3)	The members of the committee shall elect two of the members as co-chairmen, one of whom representing the employees and one of whom representing the employers.
(4)	An employer shall post and keep posted the names and work locations of all the members of the committee established for his work, undertaking or business in a conspicuous place or places where they are likely to come to the attention of his employees.
(5)	The powers and functions of the Committee are:
(a)	the receipt, consideration and expeditious disposition of complaints relating to the health and safety of the employees represented by the committee;
(b)	the maintaining of records pertaining to disposition of complaints relating to the health and safety of the employees represented by the committee;
(c)	the receipt, consideration and expeditious disposition of each safety officer's report, including any recommendation for closing down based on unsafe working conditions;
(d)	co-operating with any occupational health service established to serve the place of employment;
(e)	the establishment and promotion of health and safety programs for the education of the employees represented by the committee;
(/) participation in all enquiries and investigations on matters pertaining to occupational health and safety including such consultations as may be necessary with persons who are professionally or technically qualified to advise the committee on such matters:
(g)	developing, establishing and maintaining programs, measures and procedures for the protection or improvement of the health and safety of employees;
(h)	monitoring programs, measures and procedures related to the health and safety of employees on a regular basis;
(i)	ensuring that adequate records are kept on work accidents and injuries and health hazards and monitor data obtained therefrom on a regular basis; (/') co-operating with government safety officers;
(k) requesting from an employer or any other person acting on his behalf such information as the committee considers necessary to identify existing or potential hazards with respect to materials, processes or equipment;
(/) full access to all government and employer reports relating to the health and safety of the employees represented by the Committee.
(6)	A committee shall keep accurate records of all matters that come before it pursuant to subsection 84.1(5) and shall keep minutes of its meetings and shall make such minutes and records available to the safety officer on his request.
(7)	A committee shall meet during regular working hours at least once each month and, where meetings are required on an urgent basis as a result of an emergency or other special circumstance, the committee shall meet as required whether or not during regular working hours.
(8)	A member of a committee is entitled to such time from his work as is necessary to attend meetings or to carry out any other functions as a member of the committee, and any time spent by the member while carrying out any of his functions as a member of the committee shall, for the purpose of calculating wages owing to him, be deemed to have been spent at his work.
(9)	No member of a committee is personally liable for anything done by him in good faith under the purported authority of this section or any regulations made under this section.
(10)	A committee may establish its own rules of procedure in respect of the terms of office not exceeding two years of its members, the time, place and frequency of regular meetings of a committee, and establishing such procedures for its operation as it considers advisable."
Canada Labour Code
He said, Mr. Speaker, there is a reason why we are introducing this particular amendment. First of all, in regard to the establishment of health and safety committees, when we looked at the bill we felt that representatives of workers in the work place ought to be placed right in the middle of the establishment of such health and safety committees. The minister has assured me that the particular clause in the bill covers the placement of the representatives of workers in the formation and composition of the health and safety committees. In Bill C-8, however, the kind of structure for the health and safety committee, and the manner in which it would operate, were all left to orders in council. It was our feeling that the ways in which health and safety committees were to operate ought to be placed in the bill itself rather than left to orders in council. We therefore outlined what we felt those terms of reference ought to be and the manner in which those health and safety committees were to operate. We felt that ought to be outlined and placed in the bill statutorily rather than left to regulations.
I have had some discussions with the minister and we were able to eliminate some of the subclauses of the amendment before us in order to avoid duplication. We reached an agreement that on proposed section 84.1(2) this could be dispensed with as it is covered in the bill to our satisfaction, and subsection (3) is also covered to our satisfaction as is subsection (4). We felt that subsection (5) should remain as is, and the next one which is numbered subparagraph (5) should be numbered (6), and should stay. We felt it was important for that one to remain. We thought that the one numbered (7) on the order paper should be eliminated, and that was agreed. The next one, which is numbered (8), should be numbered (7), and the one on the order paper which is numbered No. (9) could be eliminated and No. (10) reordered as No. (8).
We felt that those would firmly institutionalize the health and safety committees with their terms of reference and their modus operandi with respect to the work place and the way in which the committees would conduct business on behalf of the workers they are seeking to protect under the act.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I believe what the hon. member has said is an accurate reflection of what was agreed. I just suggest again that he double-check over the lunch hour to see that it is in proper form, but in essence there is no disagreement. If we could table this for the lunch hour and proceed with it afterwards, I am sure the hon. member would be agreeable. It would also give the labour critic for the official opposition an opportunity to examine it more fully.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we seem to be getting along pretty well so I would like to suggest that we call it one o'clock. This would give the minister and the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) a chance to sort out the paper work. I think we could then proceed expeditiously at two o'clock. It is obvious we are not going to need the full four hours we had planned.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to express my appreciation to the opposition parties for their

April 7, 1978
Canada Labour Code
helpfulness at report stage. In going along with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) I should like to say that I believe the official opposition has one amendment and the government has three. Those could also be examined over the lunch hour. There is a purely technical amendment to clause 24, an amendment limiting review by the federal court which is clause 43, an amendment to expand access re remote locations, clause 71(1), and the fourth, a technical amendment to correct an error regarding first agreements made in committee in clause 62 on page 35.
If all those amendments that we intend to make and that we anticipate from the official opposition are accurate-and I have indicated what they are-as well as the amendments of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and can be verified over the lunch hour, they can be handled with dispatch when we come back.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I want to say on behalf of my party that we are in agreement. I will be presenting one amendment which has been discussed with the minister, arising out of representations made to the committee by Miss Betty Garbutt whose sister was killed by a former employee who had threatened to commit violence and unfortunately was not stopped in time. The basis of this amendment has been discussed with the government, and I hope it will have the support of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to add to my suggestion of a moment that the consultations which will take place between now and two o'clock will have to be not only among members on the floor but also with the Chair and the Table. What seems to be developing is a substitution of three or four report stage amendments in place of the one which has been proposed by my friend from Nickel Belt. I think we are in unanimous agreement, and that all that is needed is consultation concerning the necessary paper work.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is very much aware of the point raised by the hon. member and is ready to cooperate. However, it must also comply with the standing order which can replace the 24-hour notice only by unanimous consent. I hope that hon. members can give that unanimous consent, and whatever agreement they see fit, when we come back at two o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is Friday; we can do it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed we call it one o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At 12.43 p.m. the House took recess.
[DOT]	(1402)


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Prior to the lunch hour there was a disposition that during the short recess the minister and the members concerned would get together and suggest some motions at the report stage to replace the two motions that were in front of the House in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). We have made great progress, but that is not quite complete.
In order not to waste the time of the House, and because we did not get from the minister a redraft of motion No. 1, in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt, if the House agrees I will stand consideration of that motion for the purpose of examining it later, or withdrawing it to be replaced with the newly worded motion which is being prepared at this time.
The House may agree to proceed in the order of the clauses of the bill. As we go along, we can dispose of motion No. 2, which also was in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt and will not need to be adopted because it will have been replaced by one of the other motions.
I have before me seven proposed motions, some in the name of the minister and two in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser). These motions are achieving the purposes hon. members have accepted among themselves. Of course the Chair does face a difficulty arising from the fact that three of the motions go beyond the terms of the bill which is in front of us. At the same time, taking into account the disposition in the House to proceed all along on the basis of unanimous consent, it appears to me that the implications of these changes is not so fundamental as to prevent my accepting the motions as they are, provided we consider them by unanimous consent and, thereafter, make sure we follow the normal procedure.
[DOT]	(1412)


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I believe what you have just been handling is the rework or Garbutt amendment to 81(3). We have had the lawyers working and we have just been handed that wording in place of the old draft. If it is thought satisfactory, I can move the amendments in consecutive order. I may say there is only one amendment outstanding. It is the one put forward by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) relative to "imminent danger".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to follow the procedure suggested by the minister?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As we go along, the minister will be moving the motions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We agree to this but there is the understanding, of course, that if by the time we

April 7, 1978

get to the point at which my hon. friend's motion No. 1 has not been reworded or redrafted, the minister will accept it in the form in which it appears on the order paper.


John Carr Munro: Quite so. I turn, now, to page 14 of the bill, present clause 24. I move, seconded by my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen):
That Bill C-8, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, be amended by striking out line 9 on page 14 and substituting therefor the following:
"keep for a period of at least thirty-six"


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I am referring to page 15 of the bill and to clause 27. I move as follows:
That Bill C-8, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, be amended by adding immediately after the following new subclause:
"27.1 subsection 81 of the said Act is amended by adding thereto the following new subsection:
"(3) Every person operating or carrying on a federal work, undertaking, or business who has reasonable grounds to believe that any person may commit, or has threatened to commit, an act that endangers the safety or health of the person operating or carrying on the work, undertaking or business or any of his employees shall forthwith notify the nearest police authority."
I guess that is motion No. 2.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let's deal with that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I might suggest to the hon. member that it would be simpler if he were to make two separate motions on account of the fact he is proposing amendments to two different clauses. I suggest he move to add the new clause 27(1) and then come forward with another amendment to move to new clause 27(2).


John Allen Fraser: I have moved the new clause 27(1), and at that point I sat down, anticipating what Your Honour has just asked. We have one motion in front of us in relation to 27(1).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Carried.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Clerk has just brought a point to my attention. In what the hon. member has just proposed he suggests that section 81 of the act be amended by adding thereto a new subsection. In his previous proposal which was examined by the Chair during the lunch hour he was suggesting that 27(1)(3) be repealed and certain words substituted. The hon. member is now, in one way, suggesting an addition to a clause. In another, he is repealing a clause and revising it. I want to make sure we do things in the right way. It is my interpretation that he is suggesting the repeal of the clause and its replacement.


John Carr Munro: No.
Canada Labour Code Mr. Fraser: I do not think so.


John Carr Munro: What was advised during the lunch hour by the lawyers for the Department of Justice was to leave 71(1) as it is. It provides for certain rights to employees with respect to overtime and vacation pay. This is in regard to orders to pay arrears and I am sure it is not the intention of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) to negate that provision. We wish to amend the clause by making an additional provision which would be numbered (3) as moved.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Fraser) agreed to.
Clause 27.1 agreed to.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, in the motion that you now have in front of you you will see clause 27.2 which reads:
27.2	Section 82 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
I am sure the minister understands that Section 82 of the Code has literally been revised over the noon hour, the consequence of which is this motion. So the effect of this motion is not only to put in the second part of what we may call the Garbutt amendment but also to bring back to full force those other sections of the Code which it is not the intention to delete. So I will read the entire amendment.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) that:
27.2	Section 82 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"82(1) Every person employed upon or in connection with the operation of any federal work, undertaking or business shall, in the course of his employment,
(a)	Take all reasonable and necessary precautions to ensure his own safety and the safety of his employees; and
(b)	at all appropriate times use such devices and wear such articles of clothing or equipment as are intended for his protection and furnished to him by his employer, or required pursuant to this Part to be used or worn by him.
(2) Every person employed upon or in connection with any federal work, undertaking or business, who has reasonable grounds to believe that any person may commit, or has threatened to commit, an act that endangers the safety of his employer or any person employed upon or in connection with any work, undertaking or business, shall forthwith notify his employer.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 27.2 agreed to.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, we will now move on to page 19 of the bill. We intend to add to 82.1 (12) paragraph (c) dealing with imminent danger. The wording is not in front of me or my colleagues in the House at present, so

April 7, 1978
Canada Labour Code
I will come back to it later. I will now move on to the next amendment, again with the understanding that if it is not here in sufficient time we will proceed with the wording of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Carr Munro: I then move on to page 20, section 84.1. I propose to move the deletion of paragraph (4), seconded by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen):
That paragraph (4) of section 84.1 be deleted and the following wording substituted therefor:
(4)	The powers and functions of the committee are:
(a)	the receipt, consideration and expeditious disposition of complaints relating to the health and safety of employees represented by the committee;
I should qualify here by saying that this wording is identical to a motion put earlier by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). The amendment continues to read:
(b)	the maintaining of records pertaining to the disposition of complaints relating to the health and safety of employees represented by the committee;
(c)	the receipt, consideration and expeditious disposition of each safety officer's report, including any recommendation for closing down based on unsafe working conditions;
(d)	co-operating with any occupational health service established to serve the place of employment;
(e)	establishment and promotion of health and safety programs for the education of the employees represented by the committee;
(0 participation in all inquiries and investigations on matters pertaining to occupational health and safety, including such consultations as may be necessary with persons who are professionally or technically qualified to advise the committee on such matters;
(g)	developing, establishing and maintaining programs, measures and procedures for the protection or improvement of the health and safety of employees;
(h)	monitoring programs, measures and procedures related to the health and safety of employees on a regular basis;
(i)	ensuring that adequate records are kept on work accidents and injuries and health hazards and monitored data obtained therefrom on a regular basis;
(j)	co-operating with government safety officers;
(k)	requesting from an employer or any other person acting on his behalf such information as the committee considers necessary to identify existing or potential hazards with respect to materials, processes or equipment;
(l)	full access to all government and employer reports relating to the health and safety of the employees represented by the committee.
In the same motion, if it is permissible, we will move the deletion of the present paragraph (5) and substituting in lieu thereof a new paragraph (5) which reads as follows:
(5)	A committee shall keep accurate records of all matters that come before it pursuant to subsection 84.1(4) and shall keep minutes of its meetings and shall make such minutes and records available to the safety officer on his request.
We will also move the substitution of paragraph (6) by the following:
(6)	A committee shall meet during regular working hours at least once each month and, where meetings are required on an urgent basis as a result of an emergency or other special circumstance, the committee shall meet as required whether or not during regular working hours.
We will also move the deletion of the present paragraph (7) and the substitution of the following:
(7)	A member of a committee is entitled to such time from his work as is necessary to attend meetings or to carry out any other functions as a member of the committee, and any time spent by the member while carrying out any of his functions as a member of the committee shall, for the purpose of calculating wages owing to him, be deemed to have been spent at his work.
Further I propose to move the addition of subclause 12 which reads as follows:
Subject to subsection (9), a committee may establish its own rules of procedure in respect of the terms of office not exceeding two years of its members, the time, place and frequency of regular meetings of a committee, and establishing such procedures for its operation as it considers advisable.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This is the first time the Chair is cognizant of this amendment. If we want to follow the normal procedure, it should be split in such a way as to amend one clause of the bill at a time. If there is a disposition to have the Chair put it in this manner, it would be done only as an exceptional procedure for the purpose of saving time. I invite comments from hon. members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I think there is less embarrassment if we put this one rather than some of the others. Most of the wording of this one is the same wording as motion No. 2 in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).


John Carr Munro: Rightly so.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Am I to assume that the Chair is being asked to put the motion as it is, and as an exceptional procedure in order to assist the proceedings at report stage?
It is moved by Mr. Munro (Hamilton East), seconded by Mr. Cullen-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, there was an understanding that this was to be moved in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, that is quite acceptable. I thought the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) indicated, if I moved it, that it would be acceptable, as long as the House is fully cognizant. It does not matter.


John R. Rodriguez: I move it, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I second it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Therefore Mr. Rodriguez, seconded by Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) moves that Bill C-8 be amended in the form as just read by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro).


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) for seeing the benefit of clearly establishing the terms of reference and the duties of safety and health committees in the bill, rather than leaving it to regula-

April 7, 1978

tions. In my opinion, this is the most important aspect of the bill rather than leaving it to regulations. In my opinion, this is the most important aspect of the bill. Often we are bombarded with propaganda indicating that the number of days lost to strikes has a very grievous and serious effect on the Canadian Economy: Very little is said about the very grievous and serious blow to the Canadian economy caused by the number of days lost through accidents on the job, injuries, or lingering physical conditions because of ailments resulting from employment. Indeed the province of Ontario is wracked with such incidents.
There must be legislation providing workers with the right to exercise some control over the conditions under which and in which they work. It is one of the worker's rights to exert control over the health and safety conditions of his employment. It is one right which should not be taken away. A long time ago it was taken away by what became owners' rights. The owners determine the conditions under which the worker labours. I commend the minister for bringing an amendment to the federal Labour Code before the House which returns to the worker what was his right in the first place. I am referring to the right of a worker to refuse employment in conditions and under conditions which he considers to be injurious to his health and safety.
Instead of the health and safety committees being optional, I would have preferred those committees to be mandatory. The minister is well aware of that. I made that point time and time again in committee. If we indicate that workers ought to have control over their conditions of work, then it seems to me health and safety committees ought to be mandatory. An agreement could not be reached on that. Thus, we agreed to compromise, and we obtained a great deal of benefit for workers under federal jurisdiction. Now the conditions under which the health and safety committees will be conducted in the work place are clearly set out. It provides the workers with a right to certain information. At the present time it is denied to them. I am referring to such things as dust levels, radiation levels, or whatever. Now they would have the right to obtain such information in order to arrive at some decision vis-a-vis their continuing employment. This is extremely important.
I do not want to get carried away. I am a politician who has his feet firmly fixed on the ground, but some people would never accuse me of having them firmly affixed in cement. I realize this is not the nirvana for workers' control over the work place. As I look at part IV of the federal Labour Code, I notice in Section 80, subsection (2), that notwithstanding this legislation, nothing in the federal Labour Code which refers to the health and safety of employees will apply to employment in connection with the operation of ships, trains, aircraft, and those agencies of government which come under the Financial Administration Act. I recognize that shortcoming.
Even if this legislation is passed, there is a "notwithstanding clause" which indicates that it does not apply to ships, trains, and aircraft. What else is under federal jurisdiction? Of course an umbrella has been provided. In case anything has been missed, any other agency of government which comes under
Canada Labour Code
the Financial Administration Act has been added. Well, every federal government operation comes under that act. The Atomic Energy Control Board comes under the Financial Administration Act. That board sets the radiation levels under which Canadian workers work at Eldorado or the mines at Elliot Lake.
Also there is a provision which indicates that changes can be made by order in council. I hope the minister will receive the cooperation of his cabinet colleagues in that regard. I am anxious about health and safety. I hope the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) gives us the assurance he will work with his cabinet colleagues in order to get an order in council which would indicate that if it is good enough to have it on paper, let us make it apply to some workers for a change. I hope the minister provides some assurance that we will not have another paper tiger. There are enough paper tigers in Canada. We should start to give workers some control over their working conditions. Workers are starting to refuse to work because conditions are unsafe in this country.
Can you imagine that we have a Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who was a great defender of the asbestos workers. Oh, boy, when he was young and single, and before coming to parliament, he was a great defender of the asbestos workers. He was a great one to condemn the asbestos companies for the kind of working conditions that existed in the province of Quebec. It has been ten years since he became the Prime Minister of this country, with all the power of that office and we now find we are getting amendments to the federal Labour Code. These amendments come along every ten years, and we now have one that is to provide some protection for the workers vis-a-vis health and safety conditions.
This provision immediately becomes emasculated, because in Part IV of the federal Labour Code it is stated that this cannot apply to workers on ships, trains, and in aircraft, or indeed any other agency of the government which comes under the Financial Administration Act. One would hope that those vocal advocates of labour and of the rights of workers to work in safe health conditions would, in fact, come forward with an order in council putting these workers under the aegis of this particular bill. I hope the minister can give us the assurance that this is the direction in which we are headed with this bill.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief intercession at this point. Let me congratulate the minister on a very meaningful piece of legislation in terms of promoting labour peace in Canada. The key clause of the bill we are now dealing with may make a significant contribution, although perhaps not in the immediate future, as there are too many exceptions over which the minister does not have control, because of provincial jurisdictions. We should give the minister some credit for leading the way for provincial ministers of labour, who can now have a look at this proposal and make sure provincial labour codes contain the specific provisions of clause 29 which we are about to pass.

April 7, 1978
Canada Labour Code
In rising to speak on this particular clause let me suggest it is incumbent upon members of parliament to examine the strike situation in Canada from time to time, and the reasons for strikes. Strikes have become very unpopular in the public's mind. Let me remind the House and the minister, although he may be aware of this, of a strike taking place today in Newfoundland at a place called Baie Verte, where asbestos workers of the Advocate mines, some 570 of them, have now been on strike for seven weeks. I can assure hon. members of the House that strike pay in Newfoundland is pretty darn low. I expect it is about $30 per week for a man and his family attempting to survive. These workers are not on strike for more pay. They are not on strike for anything except a change in their working conditions.
Le me tell the minister about those working conditions. A study was carried out by Dr. Selikoss in respect of the conditions at the Advocate mines. He found that 31 per cent of the workers with 15 or more years' experience in these mines show abnormalities through X-ray, which lead to asbestosis; 15 per cent with 10 or more year's experience have abnormalities leading to asbestosis, and of the entire work force this works out to one of every ten workers with abnormalities caused from working in the Advocate mines. In spite of this we have a company and several governments which refuse to move in terms of improving the working conditions in these mines.
I know the public becomes frustrated from time to time when the airlines and other such companies go on strike, or when there is a strike among the building trades which delays construction, but I want to say that all members of parliament should be backing up this kind of strike, because such strikes can bring labour peace to Canada, particularly if they make members of parliament and our ministers aware of the fact that we must act to protect the workers who are dying every day all across this country as a direct result of the environmental conditions in which they are forced to work.
The asbestos mining situation is one of these cases, but the fluoride situation is another. Studies have been done in respect of the Kitimat company in British Columbia, and I am sure the minister is aware of this. Fluoride poisoning is a direct result of working in aluminum production.
It is time that every legislature in Canada adopted the provisions of this bill so that workers have the right to save their lives by removing themselves from a working place when working there is destroying their health. There are some amendments we might like to have seen incorporated in this bill to accomplish certain other things, but I repeat my original words that the minister is to be commended for a progressive move in the labour scene. I hope he will take the advice of my colleague, the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), about extending the jurisdiction of this measure. It may be that the minister may want to clarify this. I have not had a chance to examine the clause in detail. Perhaps I could get the minister's attention.


John Carr Munro: You have it.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Perhaps he can clarify for the House just what this provision means in terms of its exceptions, indicating whether in effect the atomic energy and uranium industry is exempted. I am not entirely sure about this, and perhaps the minister is in a position to clarify it. I hope he can also give the House some explanation of why workers in the transportation system, such as airlines, are not covered. It may be that they are covered under another bill, but I do not know.
I did not have an opportunity of following the bill through the committee, and I would appreciate the minister's response to those questions; what do the exemptions really mean, and what firms are covered under the Financial Administration Act, thereby being exempt from this legislation?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just spoken, and the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), have referred to the uranium situation. There is now a bill on the Order Paper, of which the hon. member for Nickel Belt is aware, to amend the Atomic Energy Control Act. It has reference to Part IV of the labour code applying to the industry, but it does include, as we are all aware, the phrase "unless the board otherwise directs". I would anticipate that when that bill comes before the House, particularly in view of the comments by both hon. members of the NDP, there will be controversy about those qualifying words. I anticipate hopefully dealing constructively with the objections to those words when that particular bill is before the House.


Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I want to join with my colleagues in congratulating the minister for this step forward taken by this amendment, and in paying tribute to him for his efforts and the efforts of his department to bring safe working conditions to the Devco mines in the Cape Breton coal fields.
I was not a member of the committee, although I attended one of its sessions, and I have difficulty understanding why these health and safety committees are not mandatory. It has been my experience that when health and safety committees are not mandatory there is a tendency on the part of the owners or the companies to take them less than seriously.
We must remember that all federal labour legislation, although it applies only to a very small minority of workers in Canada, not to the total working force, is meant to be persuasive in provincial jurisdictions, but we cannot bank on that type of thing. Even if we do bank on it, if the federal government is not prepared to make this mandatory, it takes away from what is a real forward step in the safety and health fields as far as protection of workers is concerned. Traditionally-as the minister and all members of the House know-the owners of property, whether they be joint stock companies or multinational corporations, consider that the main objective of protecting working conditions is to make sure their property, and therefore, the productivity that comes out of the ownership of that property, are safeguarded.

April 7, 1978

It has taken the trade union movement a long time, and it has never fully succeeded through collective bargaining alone, to establish the contrary right, which is really a human right, but which has been referred to from a legal point of view, that the worker has the property right to his job too, just as the owners of the joint stock corporation or the capitalist, publicly owned corporation or multinational, have with respect to their property. This amendment goes a step toward helping this.
Again, I would like to ask the minister why he does not make these health and safety committees mandatory. While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, and not in direct reference to this amendment-but since I am leaving for my constituency and I have attended one of these meetings where I brought this up and the minister was not present-why is it that there is not the minimum of union security granted to the unions in this labour code? Why, for example, is not the agency shop, as it is now called in jurisdictions in the United States where it is so plentiful, and what we familiarly know as the Rand formula in Canada, not included in this new labour code?
The Rand formula dates approximately from 1948 and arises, as the minister knows, from the traditional conflict between the individual rights of workers to join a union. The collective right of the union is to negotiate on behalf of its workers since it is an agent for all of the workers within the plant and has been certified as a bargaining unit. Such a formula would give those workers who wanted to opt out of a union the freedom to opt out. But since the union is the agent in getting improved conditions, salaries and so on-and under this amendment will have an added impetus to improve the safety and health of the conditions under which the workers will work-why is it that the union does not have this minimum protection that union dues will have to be paid by all members of the bargaining unit, even if some opt out of being members of the union?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. minister has introduced the amendment, and it was moved by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). As the minister has already answered a question, and we are not in committee of the whole, he is entitled to speak only once. If he wishes to answer this question he will have to do it by unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent to allow the minister to answer the question?
Perhaps it may be more in order, if there are other questions, that the minister seek one unanimous consent, but I am at the disposal of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is unanimous consent.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the members of the House. I will answer the two questions as quickly as possible because I understand the hon. member has to leave.
Canada Labour Code
The reason it is not mandatory is because we wish to put it through a trial period to test the validity of the general thrust of the 14 points to which the hon. member from the New Democratic Party from Vancouver just referred. It is simple to make something mandatory in the legislation, but if the desire to accomplish things in these committees, which do have equal representation of management and labour on them, is not there, then even if you put a policeman at the door to be sure that they stay in the room - the further specifics that the hon. member for Nickel Belt has in his amendments-if the willingness to accomplish anything of a meaningful nature through the committees is not there, nothing will get accomplished whether the committees are mandatory or not. Thus, it is the old story of management and labour and trying to get a degree of co-operation.
It can be likened to the collective bargaining process: they sit down and negotiate and accomplish nothing and make a mockery of the negotiating process. This often happens, as the hon. member knows, and I think there is a real analogy here. We felt that by treating the parties with a degree of maturity, perhaps they would see the wisdom of co-operation rather than the "big stick", which, as I have already indicated, comes up with precious few results if the spirit is not there. That is the reason that it is not mandatory.
In a sense it is more effective because the whole spirit of the legislation and its amendments is indicative of the hope on the part of the government and, more important, of parliament, that these committees should be formed to accomplish the purposes set out in the legislation. It is hoped that they will do it of their own volition and in their own enlightenend selfinterest and, obviously, on the part of the employees. Employers with any degree of wisdom or compassion, or even in their own self-interest in terms of a long-term economic gain, should care about the health of their workers and do this of their own volition.
Our legislation calls for the safety officers to conduct education programs in the work place, and this should indicate to the employers the necessity and benefit gained by following it as a matter of volition. If, over a period of time, there is nothing but obstinancy and refusal to follow the legislation, then the minister can require it. Indeed, I would suspect that it would be a rather inadequate minister of labour if after a reasonable testing period there is still obstinancy in forming committees of this kind, he did not, in fact, take advantage of the provision parliament gave him to require it to be done. That is the philosophy.
On the second point, the Rand formula, the government has not gotten into the act in terms of saying what fundamental rights unions have, which they have earned over a protracted period of time in Canada, any more than stipulating certain rights that companies perceive that they are entitled to when they meet with agents of unions at the bargaining table. We would open up a new set of provisions that would be the subject matter of endless debate. As far as the Rand formula is concerned, it is almost incredible to think that that is not

April 7, 1978
Canada Labour Code
accepted as a fact of life among organized workers and unions in Canada.
I can think of one outstanding example which occurred two or three years ago where the employer chose to have a dispute that went into a strike situation. It was a very bitter dispute over the failure to acknowledge the reality of the Rand formula, but that was a most exceptional circumstance. Every major employer in the organized sector today has accepted the Rand formula. It would be rather redundant at this stage to build into the legislation what is accepted by employers in the organized sector so prevalently that I think it would almost weaken the legislation to include it. It is common, ordinary practice. It has not been a matter of dispute at all in Canada except in one or two extraordinary circumstances. That being the case, I wonder at the necessity of putting it in legislation. To raise it as an issue now when it is accepted in common practice seems to be counterproductive.


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


John Carr Munro: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I think I served Your Honour notice, and I do now to my colleagues, that unfortunately in the wording of the motion of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) there was a typographical error which was repeated by myself. I refer to page 2 of the amendment, clause 5, the second line, which refers to "subsection 84.1(5)". That should be (4) rather than (5). I wonder if that can be accepted as a clerical error.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House agree to make the correction proposed by the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion was put to the House; I hope the House will not ask me to read it. It replaces subclauses (4), (5), (6), (7) and adds subclause (10). Shall I dispense?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Rodriguez) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This would require, I imagine, withdrawal of the previous motion, No. 2, that had been put to the House before lunch and which appeared in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). Is it agreed that motion No. 2 be withdrawn and struck from the order paper?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 2 (Mr. Rodriguez) withdrawn.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) would be prepared to go back so that we could take the motions in consecutive order and move the amendment with respect to the imminent danger provision which appears on page 19 of the bill, if he has had time to check the text which has been gone over by the Department of Justice officials. If so, I would invite him to make the motion now.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That Bill C-8 be amended on page 19 by striking out lines 21 to 31 and substituting the following therefor:
(6) where an employee having a particular occupation would normally work in a place in a particular condition or circumstance or where an employee would normally in the course of his employment work in a place in a particular condition or circumstance, that condition or circumstance in the place does not constitute an imminent danger to the safety or health of the employee and;
(c)	imminent danger to the health and safety of an employee includes a condition in any place where any radiation safety level set by either the federal or provincial government has been exceeded."
Mr. Speaker, I was particularly interested, in the community that I represent, to learn that just about 100 miles away there are two very large uranium mining companies, Rio Algom and Denison Mines, that have been mining uranium since about 1958. I have become aware of the problems of people who work in the uranium mines vis-a-vis lung cancer. It has been quite a task, an uphill struggle for the union, the United Steelworkers of America, which represents workers in those operations, to get agencies of the provincial and federal governments to recognize the hazards of radiation exposure.
The Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada is responsible for setting the safety levels in those mines-if there can be any such thing as a safety level. Implementation of the standards, however, has been turned over to the provincial ministry of mines and ultimately to the department of labour of Ontario. They are supposed to carry out the proper inspection and ensure that the safety levels are adhered to. History has shown that those levels were never enforced. As a result, the union representing the workers has had an uphill struggle to prove that the incidence of lung cancer with those workers has a direct link to and is a direct result of their employment in the mines.
The record is strewn with refusal after refusal of the Workmen's Compensation Board of Ontario to recognize that lung ailments, particularly lung cancer, are a direct result of working in those mines under those conditions. We find that the safety and health of those workers have been lost in this kind of jurisdictional struggle between the federal government and the provincial government. The federal government is responsible for setting the level trhrough the Atomic Energy Control Board but it has turned responsibility for enforcement over to the provincial health inspectors. These inspectors are now attempting to enforce standards set by the Ontario ministry of mines.
The company, when it suits its purposes, maintains that it comes under federal jurisdiction. Whichever is the less stringent standard is the one the company stands by. When the
April 7, 1978

Atomic Energy Control Board standard is less stringent than the provincial standard, the company claims to be under federal jurisdiction. Where the provincial standard is less stringent, then the company claims to come under provincial jurisdiction.
At the moment a case is at arbitration. Workers, exercising their rights under the Ontario bill 139, walked off the job because of conditions in the uranium mines. The company is disputing that jurisdiction, claiming they were contravening the federal act, not a provincial act. The case has gone to arbitration because the workers feel strongly about getting the tightest possible control over working conditions. That is why I raised the question with the minister. There is a need to place the uranium workers-whether they work in processing plants, refineries or mines-firmly and squarely under the jurisdiction which is the most stringent. This whole jungle of federal-provincial jurisdiction must be eliminated. The minister agreed there is a problem and that this is the direction we should move in to provide safety and control over the workplace for those most affected, the workers.
I am not naive, Mr. Speaker. 1 say again to the minister that I recognize in Part IV this could not become effective because of the fact that the AECB comes under the Financial Administration Act. I hope the minister can convince his colleagues that we need an order in council which would put those workers under the umbrella of this particular bill. I plead with the minister to do that because that is what I intend to tell to the workers in my area. As a matter of fact, I am speaking in Blind River on Saturday afternoon at the nominating convention of the person whom I hope will be the next member of parliament for Algoma.


An hon. Member:: Dreamer.


John R. Rodriguez: Well, I think the New Democratic candidate will be the next member of parliament for Algoma. When I speak at this convention I will deal with this matter. I will not be so naive as to say that we have nirvana. The minister still has to convince his colleagues that this sort of change must be made. I wish the minister the best of luck with that task. He knows where I stand on this issue and he has my support. I hope he will proceed onward and upward.


John Carr Munro: I understand.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Rodriguez) agreed to.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I am referring to page 28 of Bill C-8. I am moving an addition
Canada Labour Code
which will be a new clause. I move, seconded by my colleague the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen):
That Bill C-8 be amended in Clause 43 by striking out lines 35 to 37 on page 28 and substituting the following therefor:
"44. Sections 122 and 123 of the said Act are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"122. (1) Subject to this Part, every order or decision of the Board is final and shall not be questioned or reviewed in any court, except in accordance with subsection 28(1 )(a) of the Federal Court Act.
(2)	Except as permitted by subsection (1), no order, decision or proceeding of the Board made or carried on under or purporting to be made or carried on under this Part shall be
(a)	questioned, reviewed, prohibited or restrained, or
(b)	made the subject of any proceedings in or any process of any court, whether by way or injunction, certiorari, prohibition, quo warranto or otherwise,
on any ground, including the ground that the order, decision or proceeding is beyond the jurisdiction of the Board to make or carry on or that, in the course of any proceeding, the Board for any reason exceeded or lost its jurisdiction.
123. (1) The Board shall, on the"
That is the amendment. I am sure hon. members are aware that this is designed to overcome frivolous delays by applications to the Federal Court during proceedings before the board which delay the decision, to the frustration of both parties involved. It is similar to proposals in other provincial legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Before presenting this amendment, the Chair would ask unanimous consent of the House to have motion No. 1, which was on the order paper in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) withdrawn. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 1 (Mr. Rodriguez) withdrawn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The House has heard the terms of the motion of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro). Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Munro, Hamilton East) agreed to.


John Carr Munro: I would now like to draw hon. members' attention to page 35 of Bill C-8, referring to Clause 62. This appears at the bottom of the page on the left-hand side. Section 171.1 is deleted. I move, seconded by my colleague the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen):
That Bill C-8 be amended by striking out lines 31 to 39 on page 35 and lines 1 to 7 on page 36 and substituting therefor the following:
"171.1 (1) Where an employer or a bargaining agent is required, by notice given under Section 146 after December 31, 1975, to commence collective bargaining for the purpose of entering into the first collective agreement between the parties with respect to the bargaining unit for which the bargaining agent has been certified and the requirements of paragraphs 180(1) (a) to

April 7, 1978
Canada Labour Code
(d)	have otherwise been met, the Minister may, if he considers it necessary or advisable, at any time thereafter direct the Board to inquire into the dispute and, if the Board considers it advisable, to settle the terms and conditions of the first collective agreement between the parties.
(2)	The Board shall proceed as directed by the Minister under subsection (1) and, if the Board settles the terms and conditions of a first collective agreement referred to in that subsection, those terms and conditions shall constitute the collective agreement between the parties and shall be binding on them and on the employees in the bargaining unit, except to the extent that such terms and conditions are subsequently amended by the parties by agreement in writing.
(3)	In settling the terms and conditions of a first collective agreement under this section, the Board shall give the parties an opportunity to present evidence and make representations and the Board may take into account
(a)	the extent to which the parties have, or have not, bargained in good faith in an attempt to enter into the first collective agreement between them;
(b)	the terms and conditions of employment, if any, negotiated through collective bargaining for employees performing the same or similar functions in the same or similar circumstances as the employees in the bargaining unit; and
(c)	such other matters as the Board considers will assist it in arriving at terms and conditions that are fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
(4)	Where the terms and conditions of a first collective agreement are settled by the Board under this section, the agreement shall be effective for a period of one year from the date on which the Board settles the terms and conditions of the collective agreement."


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Munro, Hamilton East) agreed to.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would now like to draw hon. members' attention to page 42. The new clause 71.1 has to do with remote locations, permitting union officers to go thereon. I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen):
That Bill C-8 be amended by adding thereto immediately after clause 71 on page 42 the following:
71.1 Subsection 199(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"199. (1) Where the Board
(a)	receives from a trade union an application for an order granting an authorized representative of the trade union access to employees living in an isolated location on premises owned or controlled by their employer or by any other person, and
(b)	determines that access to the employees
(i)	would be impracticable unless permitted on premises owned or controlled by their employer or by such other person, and
(ii)	is reasonably required for purposes relating to soliciting union membership, the negotiation or administration of a collective agreement, the processing of a grievance or the provision to employees of a union service,
the Board may make an order granting the authorized representative of the trade union designated in the order access to the employes on the premises of their employer or such other person, as the case may be, that are designated in the order."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The House has heard the terms of the motion of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Munro, Hamilton East) agreed to.


John Carr Munro: that the bill be concurred in.


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


Yvon Pinard: By leave, now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Now, pursuant to special order made earlier this day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I think the House should get leave to take third reading of this bill at this time. It is an important piece of legislation. We do not want it to get caught by any events that could occur. I would make a special plea, however. I point out that our table officers and Mr. Maingot and his staff are extremely efficient. This gives me a chance to say so. Because of the numerous changes we have made, I trust they will apply their efficiency to the extreme in reprinting this bill so that the bill we are now passing on third reading does conform to what we have agreed to at the report stage.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: By leave now, we will take third reading.


John Carr Munro: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


John Carr Munro: I wish to thank hon. members.


MISCELLANEOUS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1978 MEASURE TO CORRECT REVISED STATUTES
Hon. Monique Begin (for the Minister of Justice) moved: that Bill C-41, to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms, errors and other matters of 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 the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

April 7, 1978


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, after consultation with opposition parties, I think there is unanimous consent to proceed with consideration of Bill C-41 at all stages in a very short period. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Young) would simply have a very brief remark to make before passage of this bill at all stages.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, speaking for my party, I can confirm that there have been such discussions. This bill, as the parliamentary secretary will point out, just makes changes to clear up a few anomalies. It does not have any effect in terms of substance. A draft of the bill was considered in committee before the bill itself was introduced. We see no reason why we should not deal with it completely this afternoon. We are prepared to give it second reading, have it referred to committee of the whole and give it third reading.
May I say that one of these Friday afternoons, when we seem to be able to do so well, I hope the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) will come in with his bill affecting the rates of pensions, and he will see how fast we get that through.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: We would need unanimous consent of all hon. members to change the wording of the motion to go into committee of the whole. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Mr. Roger Young (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, just to recap briefly and as a courtesy to hon. members, hon. members will recall that some few months ago I tabled in the House a document entitled "Proposal to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms" and so on. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has said, it was subsequently referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. It was studied by that committee on the understanding that the proposals contained in that document, which were accepted by the committee, would then become the bill which we presently have before us. The bill before us contains proposals accepted by all members of the standing committee.
I should point out as a courtesy to hon. members that in the bill as printed there is one less clause compared to the report which was tabled by the chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. The clause which is missing has been deleted from the bill. It had to do with the appointment of auditors to Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation.
The Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) requested subsequent to the report and the proposals being brought into the House, and prior to the printing of the bill,
Revised Statutes
that that clause be deleted at the request of hon. members on both sides of the House. As a courtesy to hon. members, the minister does not wish to proceed with that clause at the moment.
All clauses in the bill have been thoroughly studied by the justice and legal affairs committee. I hope the bill will be approved expeditiously in all stages this afternoon.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for the kindness of his consultation with me with regard to this bill and with particular reference to the amendment dealing with the auditor of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I understand it was the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott), the urban affairs critic of this party, who led in the concurrence of the request to the minister with regard to that matter. That is perfectly acceptable.


Roger Carl Young: There were one or two.


Walter David Baker: The parliamentary secretary has indicated there were one or two. He is quite right with respect to that.
This is housekeeping legislation. It is a good idea for us from time to time to go through the statutes of Canada and pick out the anomalies and changes that should be made, those things that drive lawyers crazy and do not help in the relationship between clients and their lawyers. It is very difficult for solicitors to explain to their clients anomalies and inconsistencies.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: It drives the public crazy.


Walter David Baker: I know that the hon. member opposite is a client. I do not know whether he is a lawyer. In any event, it is good to get this kind of thing straightened out. Bearing in mind this is housekeeping legislation, it is appropriate that so soon before the House we all keep is dissolved and we go our separate ways we should be dealing with this kind of legislation. We are quite prepared to agree that this bill should go through all stages today in this place. When concurrence is called for, I am prepared to consent on behalf of Her Majesty's opposition.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
April 7, 1978
Maritime Transport
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, after consultation with opposition parties, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that it is four o'clock and that we should proceed with consideration of notice of motion No. 23, in the name of the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie). I ask for the unanimous consent of the House so that all notices of motion prior to No. 23 be allowed to stand and that the hour provided for consideration of private members' business expire at 4.35, when we can call it five o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The House has heard the request of the parliamentary secretary that the Chair should consider it four o'clock and that all notices of motion prior to No. 23 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent? Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


J. Robert Howie: That the Standing Committee on Regional Development be empowered to study the concept of using transportation as a development tool by putting in place a modern transportation network in the maritime provinces, incorporating bus, train, highway and air services, and report back to the House its findings on the desirability and the best ways and means of achieving such a concept.
He said: Mr. Speaker, we must focus the attention of all departments of government on the issue of regional transportation if we are to succeed in helping Canadians who live in the Atlantic provinces to help themselves. Transportation is of paramount importance to the region, and since it is related directly to the whole question of regional economic expansion I want it placed before the appropriate committee of this House to be considered and dealt with within the total context of that committee's mandate.
Lack of an effective transportation system has been a problem in the maritime provinces ever since the turn of the century when the intercolonial railway was absorbed by Canadian National Railways. A gradual increase to bring fares charged in the maritimes to the higher level charged in Upper Canada was brought about by 1923. One of the early rate hikes amounted to about 120 per cent. The competitive disadvantage to the maritimes was recognized in 1927 with the passage of the Maritime Freight Rates Act under which rail freight rates were reduced by 20 per cent for freight passage within the maritimes, and a slight reduction was made with
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier).]
respect to freight originating in the maritimes for transportation elsewhere in Canada. In 1957 the subsidy was increased to 30 per cent and in 1969 the Atlantic Regional Freight Assistance Act was passed providing subsidies to Maritime truckers.
In 1974 changes were made in the federal freight subsidy program affecting railways and truckers in the maritimes; an additional selective subsidy of 20 per cent in addition to the existing 30 per cent subsidy came into effect. This program was designed to assist the transport of selected commodities grown or manufactured in the Atlantic provinces and shipped to other parts of Canada for sale.
Despite millions of dollars paid in these subsidies, maritime shippers still find themselves at a comparative disadvantage in selling products from the maritimes in the central Canadian market. There are serious structural deficiencies in our transportation system which work against Canadians who live in the Atlantic provinces. Because of tariff and quota regulations, Canadians who live along the Atlantic seaboard form a captive market for industries in central Canada. On the other hand, their distance from the more densely populated markets places them at a serious disadvantage when it comes to developing an industrial base of their own. With smaller industries and a lower population they ship a lower volume of products through older and less developed transportation carriers at transportation costs which are much higher both on a unit basis and in terms of the distance travelled. Maritimers are paying for unused capacity as well as for part of the subsidies which they themselves receive.
As a result of the population and industrial imbalance between the maritimes and central Canada, many boxcars go to the maritimes loaded with goods for delivery there and return empty or partially empty. The relatively low volume shipped westward means that maritimers do not enjoy all the advantages of competition between carriers. The trucking operation which developed dramatically in recent years has still not reached its potential. Moreover, the high risk factor involved and the smaller profits to be made by truckers meant that the operation was much slower to start than might have been expected.
In addition to suffering from a lack of competition between carriers, maritimers also suffer from the lack of co-operation between road and rail and from a failure to bring about integration in certain areas. Railroads and truckers should, for example, be encouraged to become involved in common warehouses and integrated schedules to their mutual advantage and that of the public they serve.
I would like now to turn briefly to the quality of transportation service in the maritimes and the Atlantic region. One of the most criticized features of air travel is the number of intermediate stops that must be made between centres. Let me illustrate this. If you are travelling at around 6 p.m. from Charlottetown to Fredericton, you fly from Charlottetown to Halifax, you change planes, and then you fly from Halifax to Moncton, from Moncton to Saint John and from Saint John to
April 7, 1978

Fredericton. If you are flying at 8.40 a.m. from Fredericton to Ottawa, probably you will not have too much difficulty getting the flight from Fredericton to Montreal, and incidentally, this is one of the two flights in the Atlantic provinces where you are served an excellent meal. You then may be fortunate enough to catch the connecting Air Canada flight 167 from Montreal to Ottawa. One of our colleagues joined about six other people who could not get seats on the plane on one occasion, and this flight was already booked on two other occasions when I tried to make the connection. The alternative is to wait in Montreal for three and one half hours for the next flight.
Before I suggest that air transportation can be improved in the maritime provinces, I have to tell the House that it is our best mode of transportation available at this point in time. The problem is that we do not have enough direct flights within the maritimes and between points in the maritimes and points in central Canada and northern parts of the United States. We do not have these flights because we do not have enough volume of trade to make them pay. Even with the large subsidies which are paid to air carriers we still have difficulty in providing the numbers that are needed to make it a good, efficient operation.
Now, the sad fact is that we are never going to have the numbers or the trade unless we first have the service, and therein lies the key to our basic problem in transportation in the Atlantic provinces. A high quality air cargo service is absolutely essential if Atlantic Canada is to develop a good industrial and commercial base. In this regard some of the larger firms in the Atlantic provinces have purchased their own planes.
Rail passenger service and, to a degree, rail freight has not really been given a good chance in the Atlantic provinces because the railways have allowed their rail beds to deteriorate to the point where trains move very slowly and the equipment they use, particularly in respect to passenger service, is generally 25 years of age or older. Depending heavily on the United States for reefer cars which the railways rent or buy, our potato industry has been affected detrimentally by the shortage of equipment.
The gateway to commerce in the maritimes is the deep water ports of Halifax and Saint John which, because of their advantageous geographic position, can become arteries of commerce in an expanding trade environment if the ports are properly equipped with modern facilities. Improved terminal storage and handling facilities are badly needed in the Atlantic provinces.
Highways in the Atlantic provinces are the principal arteries of commerce and they are carefully preserved by our highway departments. Highway weight restrictions are essential in the spring to preserve the roads for use during the balance of the year. This means, of course, that truckers have to operate with limited loads and therefore make more runs to achieve the same volume of traffic, which adds considerably to the cost of transporting goods.
Maritime Transport
The economy can be stimulated by an improved highway network. Four lane highways can be built in many instances on existing rights of way, and with two lanes going in each direction turn and elevation gradients require less expense to permit safe passage than is the case with single lane roads. This significant saving would go a long way toward paying for the additional pavement.
These more modern highways are not as much in evidence in the maritimes as they should be because without federal aid our provincial governments have not the funds to build them. In New Brunswick, for example, I feel the federal government should participate financially in a ring road around Fredericton, the new highway bridge across the river at Fredericton and a four lane highway connecting Fredericton, the capital city, with the port of Saint John.
When approached with such concepts, the federal govenr-ment is only too quick to suggest that current traffic needs do not warrant such expenditures. New Brunswick's five year highway and bridge program which contained such a concept was discouraged by this government only two years ago. The point I am making is that the traffic will never warrant such highways unless the highways are built to stimulate development and thus develop the population that would warrant the highways.
Despite all the subsidies, freight rates remain too high because they are too high to begin with. We had a good example of this before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications on May 31 of last year in reference to our very important New Brunswick forest products. A comparison was made between the rates in New Brunswick and in British Columbia, and on raw wood products we found that rates in New Brunswick were 60 per cent higher.
Many people in the potato industry in New Brunswick find that the contemplated freight rate increases of 20 per cent and 12 per cent scheduled to be implemented during the next few months would put producers close to having their profit margins cut to the point where they would go out of business.
The concerted attack on about four occasions over the last few years on the "at and east" rates which make possible the shipment of export grain and flour through the Atlantic ports, if successful, would mean that the ports of Halifax and Saint John would be about the only ones in the country not receiving subsidies for export grain shipments. Indeed it would be ball game over in the maritimes for almost all shippers of products if the user-pay concept were adopted.
There is a general suspicion that the railways who are masters at the rates game charge whatever the traffic will bear, and with the limited competition and long distance from markets the maritime captives of the railways would find their future intolerable.
Some essential changes are absolutely necessary if the Atlantic provinces are to move into parity with the rest of Canada. The first big change is right at the top of the Department of Transport. The Department of Transport is so massive and in such a mess that most of its time is consumed

April 7, 1978
Maritime Transport
in clearing up the mess that already exists. During the last three years no very exciting proposals have come from that department for this reason.
I suggest that the department should be divided into different modes, one for each form of transportation, and that these modes should be co-ordinated and interrelated. The significant policy change that is essential for this department is that it should use transportation as a development tool across Canada.
Nowhere else in the world does the user pay the total cost of the service to him. The cutback in services to the maritime provinces, plus the increase in rates and the almost seamless web of rates that exists, has become a nightmare to maritime shippers. Every time you change one small rate the reaction among other rates is fantastic.
One result in New Brunswick is that we have an over-supp-ply of wood in one part of the province and an under-supply of wood in another part, and the cost of transporting wood from one section to another is intolerable. Our success story in secondary manufacturing in the agricultural sector is limited but it can be built on and expanded.
Instead of paying increasing freight rates to ship our farm produce to distant markets and buying back cooked meats, bottled jams and canned vegetables, we urgently need a fundamental change in our transportation and DREE policies to enable us to develop plants to purchase and process local products in New Brunswick for sale in New Brunswick and across Canada, and, through tariff changes, to our natural trading partners along the Atlantic seaboard. We have the resource potential to supply and operate plants to process cheese, meats, fruits and vegetables, to name only a few. I urge the government to invest in the future of New Brunswick and to take this giant step in creating good jobs and markets for our farming community. My remarks apply equally, but with less knowledge, to Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.
The simple concept that we must ask ourselves in terms of transportation cost is: "How much does it cost to get a product to market economically? How much does it cost to get it there now?" Any difference in cost must demand a subsidy, or a roll back in freight rates. A user-pay concept cannot achieve this purpose.
As a transportation system is used more, the cost should be lower. Right now for the railways it must be a paying proposition. Air Canada by statute must contemplate a profit. We cannot possibly discuss rates with the railways because it is a seamless web that only they understand. They do not have enough competition, while our national air carriers have never been refused a fare increase.
The railways should be required to retain, modernize and upgrade the service they presently give to the total area of the maritimes. Better rail freight cars are absolutely essential for shippers, particularly for agricultural products, and the integration of rail freight and passenger service with other forms

of transportation is an important step in developing an efficient transportation system.
The Government of Canada should co-operate in a meaningful manner, on at least a 75-25 per cent basis, with the governments of the Atlantic provinces to put in place a system of modern, all-weather highways to serve Canadians in the Atlantic provinces both now and tomorrow.
Air carriers should be required to consult with local communities before discontinuing service. Air Canada should provide more direct flights between the maritimes and central Canada, even on a subsidized basis. EPA should be encouraged to provide direct flights in the maritimes between maritime centres and centres that do not now receive regular air carrier service. Faster and more frequent air freight service to points in the maritimes is essential.
CP Air should be given access to the Atlantic market to provide more competition for Air Canada. Air Canada should be requested to take note of the excellent in-cabin service provided to maritimers by Eastern Provincial Airways.
Better methods of permitting freight rate increases with railways, such as through a tribunal with government, shippers and railroad representatives, should be evolved to give some relief to captive shippers in the maritimes. Present statutory subsidies should be retained, and a consistent subsidy policy which would expand and improve the present program should be developed. Transportation must be used as a development tool in the maritime provinces. We must put in place in the maritimes a modern transportation system which will enable real growth to take place.
My purpose in raising this resolution and in suggesting this topic be placed with the DREE committee is to provide an opportunity for all members of parliament from the Atlantic provinces to cite examples by which transportation can be improved in that region. They can relate to their own constituencies. With their knowledge and with the use of expert witnesses, I hope we might finally develop transportation as a development tool in a very meaningful way in Atlantic Canada. Transportation in itself is not an answer to the problems of regional disparity, but it is an important segment in the process of arriving at an answer. It requires a coordinated focus by all departments of government on this very important subject. Transportation plays a very dominant role in arriving at an ultimate conclusion.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to raise this matter this afternoon, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have an opportunity to comment on the questions raised this afternoon relating to transportation. However, I am puzzled with regard to the continuous contradictions raised by hon. members opposite before the House. Transportation is an important question. On the one hand, hon. members opposite indicate that they would like to see the government spend less and say that we are spending much more than we should. On the other hand, they bring in motions and resolutions asking
April 7, 1978

the government to do things which would be more costly. This is not the first time the government has been faced with this type of suggestion, which would result in an increase in expenditures. There are difficulties in some aspects of the resolution with respect to not being able to have it both ways.
Also it is interesting to observe that hon. members on the other side do not take the opportunity to say positive things about what has been happening in Canada in the realm of transportation. Canadian National Railways is now turning a profit because of the vision and dynamic leadership of its new management and administration, especially that by Dr. Ban-deen. The other day Dr. Bandeen appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications in Ottawa, at which time he gave a most impressive performance responding to questions raised by members from all sides. Those questions concerned all aspects of the operations of CN across Canada. After witnessing the performance of the President of the CNR, and looking at the profit picture he produced, one quickly appreciates the reasons why CN is in its present position.
I am sure the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) will appreciate what I have to say regarding Air Canada, since its president, Mr. Taylor, comes from our native province of New Brunswick. With his youth and dynamic leadership, he is able to show a profit and has turned things completely around in the last year or so. He has strived for the efficiency we all wish to see.
I should like to quote from the speech of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) which was made in March 1978 in Atlantic Canada. It reads as follows:
To my mind, transportation is one of the most important binding agents we have. It has been so from the time of Confederation when the rail line linked for the first time what had been isolated and separate communities. Even with the advent of other ties such as modern communications, transportation still remains a key factor in a country the size of Canada.
Transportation has also been an important factor in the economic development of this country. Without an efficient transportation system, western grain producers could never reach rapidly-growing markets all over the world. And in Atlantic Canada, our fine ports have been our link to European markets since the earliest days.
Regarding the problem of freight rates, one study has taken place with respect to the Maritime Freight Rates Act and the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act. That covers the Atlantic region and Gaspe coast. Following consultation with the provincial governments, we determined that the existing subsidy for movements within the region did not provide the maximum possible economic benefit for the region and, in turn, agreed that a subsidy should be paid on selected regionally produced goods moved by all means of transportation. This subsidy will be implemented by September 1 on a selected list of commodities worked out by federal and provincial officials. I am convinced our revisions to the blanket 15 per cent subsidy program will have a positive economic effect on the whole region by making goods produced in Atlantic Canada more competitive and by improving competition in various forms of transportation.
Maritime Transport
The Department of Transport has investigated the distribution system for potatoes from New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. Working with the provincial governments, potato producers and distributors, already we have made some significant improvements to the distribution system, including revisions to potato freight rates, some improvements to port facilities in several places in Atlantic Canada, and a new operational planning system.
An important segment of the economy in Atlantic Canada centres around the shipbuilding industry, and there are several projects that could mean a significant boost if a shipyard here is the successful bidder.
Recently it was announced that, although there is no funding involved, a major step toward streamlining the management of east coast ferry and coastal service was taken in December with the establishment of CN Marine, based in Moncton, New Brunswick.
All of these points are obvious, glaring and important, but they are never referred to by hon. members who raise questions and problems relating to transportation.
The call which has been made for planning and placing a modern transportation network into being in the maritime provinces has been answered already, in my opinion. In fact, developments which have occurred in the past few days indicate the government is sensitive to the special transportation needs of the Atlantic provinces. Further, it is responding to meet those needs in a positive and highly visible manner for today and for the future.
The Minister of Transport also this week made three very important maritime-oriented public announcements of which hon. members are no doubt aware. When he was in Yarmouth he presented the province of Nova Scotia with a cheque for more than $5 million to cover work already done during the past year on that province's highway network. The money was provided under the Atlantic provinces transportation agreement announced last year and is just a portion of the $125 million which will be spent on a cost-sharing basis with the federal government, enabling all of the four maritime provinces to upgrade their individual road systems. I believe this agreement forms the base, but not the only one, for the modern transportation network which the hon. member appears to be seeking, but which is already there.
The funds provided this week for Nova Scotia represent only the start of the highway improvement program for that province, which will total about $64 million over the four year span. Better roads, of course, will allow commercial vehicles to carry greater weights, and these improvements are direct benefits to the province's trucking industry.
The second announcement made by the minister is in a related area but it also means this government is cognizant of the local as well as regional transportation needs of the maritime provinces. A $1 million contribution was made to construct a new bus terminal in downtown Saint John, New Brunswick. This contribution is just a portion of the $4 million
4268

April 7, 1978
Maritime Transport
assigned to the intercity bus industry, and it also comes under the $125 million transportation umbrella for the Atlantic provinces that I referred to a few moments ago.
One of the conditions of this agreement with New Brunswick is that the bus company improve service on several of its network routes. Four new coaches will be purchased under the agreement and they will join the fleet to boost passenger service between Fredericton, Moncton and Newcastle. Under provisions of the Atlantic provinces transportation agreement each province must, of course, identify service improvement to the bus network in its respective jurisdiction. New Brunswick, incidentally, is the first province to do so.
A very important point which I believe should not be omitted is that there is provision in the Atlantic provinces transportation agreement providing for a searching look at what the future requirements in transportation may be after the current agreement expires. This means that while the immediate needs of highway transportation are being taken care of, both the federal government and the provinces are looking at least four years ahead, trying to determine how the real transportation growth will meet projected forecasts. It is this kind of look-ahead planning which will ensure the most efficient and the most equitable transportation modes so vital to the economy and well-being of the Atlantic provinces.
I think that answers the question in respect of the point raised by the hon. member when he referred to the already outdated term "user-pay". At a recent national policy convention of the Liberal party we adopted a resolution that this term is not one that is viable or to be used, but rather that when the objectives of commercial viability and regional development conflict, then regional development will take precedence. This fundamental principle of transportation policy is to encourage and support economic development through provision of effective and sensible transportation services, not just in the Atlantic provinces but across Canada as well.
The philosophies of commercial viability and regional development certainly do not conflict in the announcement the Minister of Transport made just last month dealing with a $1 million contract for consulting services in connection with the building of the Fairview Cove container terminal in Halifax. The minister announced last December that the new container terminal would be built, and it is anticipated that about 12 construction contracts will be required to complete this project by December, 1980, at a cost of $35.6 million. Construction has already provided additional employment in the area, and about 100 more jobs will be created to operate the facility. It should be remembered also that studies made by the National Harbours Board and the province of Nova Scotia concluded that additional container facilities will be required to handle anticipated growth in container traffic through the port by the early 1980's.
The cost sharing of this project is $29.1 million by the federal government and the remainder of $6.5 million by the province. I would take the opportunity to mention as well the tremendously efficient operation of the Saint John port with the vision and ability shown by the manager and those

appointed persons responsible in that city. They have been increasing the container traffic and other business in that area at an impressive rate.
Around the middle of March we announced that a contract to construct a forest products terminal shed at pier No. 1 in Saint John harbour was awarded in the amount of $2,759,000. When this project is completed later this year there will be a total of 6.7 acres of enclosed storage space available to the forest products terminal. This shed will now consolidate the handling of all forest products at the site.
I should also like to point out that while our minister was in the Atlantic provinces just recently he inaugurated a new ferry service between Yarmouth and Portland, Maine. This now is an established year-round commercial operation, and this type of direct link to the United States is of tremendous importance to that part of Atlantic Canada.
The four maritime provinces are again brought into the over-all maritime transportation picture with our urban transportation assistance program. This program is designed to tackle a number of transportation problems affecting major cities. Each province will receive $10 for each of its citizens over a five year period, and a number of urban transportation projects high on the priority list will also be submitted under this project. The financial breakdown shows that New Brunswick will receive $6.8 million, Nova Scotia $8.2 million, Newfoundland $5.6 million and Prince Edward Island $1.2 million.
As you know, VIA Rail Incorporated was created last year to provide a completely revamped rail passenger service system across Canada. Part of the reorganization, of course, calls for new equipment. The government in November of last year announced that it would be purchasing 22 locomotives and 50 coaches at a cost of about $90 million. This is the first major purchase of Canadian rail passenger equipment in more than ten years. These new trains will greatly assist VIA Rail in providing modern, attractive and economical rail passenger service throughout the country. Several of these trains will be put into service in 1980 as part of a new high quality rail passenger service between Quebec City and Montreal. The remaining trains will be used by VIA in the introduction of conveniently scheduled, fast intercity trains across Canada to complement an upgraded transcontinental service and, therefore, will be available to VIA for western Canada and the maritimes as well.
I had the opportunity of putting this question to the new president, Mr. Roberts, as well as to others such as Mr. Benson of the CTC and Mr. Lang when they appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, and received the assurance that we will see some of these funds directed as well to improving the roadbed and other equipment in the Atlantic area.
Direct funding and cost-sharing programs are, of course, essential in terms of a broad transportation policy for a given region. The other facet involved subsidies, and this government has been looking into this matter in the broad overview of transportation requirements for the maritime provinces. One
April 7, 1978

of the subsidies we have been studying is the Maritime Freight Rates Act and the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act covering the Atlantic region and the Gaspe coast. After discussions with the provincial authorities we decided that the existing subsidy for movement within the region did not provide the maximum possible economic benefit for the region, and in turn we agreed that a subsidy should be paid on selected regionally-produced goods moving by all modes of transportation. This subsidy will be implemented by September 1 on a selected list of commodities, such as those I mentioned earlier in my remarks.
Turning to aviation for a moment, a significant period of development is being seen for the Atlantic region in this area. This will include a new terminal building, a maintenance garage and firehall, and eventually a new 5,000 foot runway at the Charlottetown airport. The project, developed in consultation with provincial and municipal authorities, will cost more than $21 million, and work is expected to begin early this summer. Other improvements for the airport include a new maintenance garage, aircraft apron, taxiways, a car park, an access road system and field electrical installations.
Gander airport in Newfoundland will be receiving a new air control centre, an expansion to its air terminal building and improvements to the north runway. The completed project will cost an estimated $18 million. A new maintenance garage and firehall will be built at St. John's airport at a cost of $1.5 million over the next two years.
I am delighted to report that on April 17 we will see the inauguration of the new terminal building to be constructed at Charlo airport in Restigouche, which will be the last of a multiphase program that has witnessed the extension of the runway to 6,000 feet to receive jets, the construction of a modern maintenance garage with firehall at a cost of $850,000 and electronic facilities for instrument control landing services. This brings the total expenditure on the Charlo airport to about $6.5 million.
These facts and figures which 1 have been able to bring to the House this afternoon clearly demonstrate more than just the concern of the government, but the type of planning, vision and study that has gone into this most important aspect of government responsibility, particularly in the Atlantic area. As I mentioned earlier, it does surprise me when members do not take the opportunity to point out the significant developments that have been taking place in their areas through the direction of the Minister of Transport and his department.
Recently the Minister of Transport has come on strong in meeting these demands and finding answers to the problems that we are faced with in the Atlantic area. I have had the opportunity to question various officials in the transportation field as they appeared before the tranportation committee regarding air passenger service in the Atlantic area, and I have received assurances from Mr. Benson of the CTC and the Minister of Transport himself that discussions will take place in terms of EPA and Air Canada to work out a rationalized
Maritime Transport
service that will see all citizens in the Atlantic area have an equal opportunity to travel, not only within the four Atlantic provinces but to other parts of Canada as well. It is of great interest to me that citizens in the Atlantic area are able to enjoy the advantage of moving economically, efficiently and conveniently to other parts of Canada and the world as well.
As I said when I began my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to be able to respond to this resolution this afternoon and at the same time place some facts about transportation on the record.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I love these crowded afternoons! One has the feeling that there is a tremendous audience in the galleries and in the House hanging upon every utterance of hon. members, and that inspires us to do our best. It is regrettable that the fourth estate, which seems to regard this place as nothing more than theatre, abandons always, and almost in total, the Friday matinee. I have often thought in my 21 years here that the greatest problem of the press gallery, and they have many, is that many of its members are brought up from the police beat, and since it is not always so clear to distinguish between the accused and the accuser in this House, they quite often do not really perceive what is going on.
I want to congratulate the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) for bringing up for consideration this Friday afternoon a topic which is as old as confederation and, indeed, older. Our people in the sea-bound provinces have troubled themselves about this situation. They studied and debated it and brought their great, constructive suggestions and inquiries to the national legislature after the dominion was formed. It is very significant that the hon. gentleman should interlace this particular question of transportation with the concept of regional economic disparity. It pleases me that the very distinguished Canadian, the former premier of Nova Scotia, the Hon. G. I. Smith, was the man who brought to the dominion-provincial constitutional discussions the question of regional economic disparity. It is the kind of question which a federation should, properly be seized with as it studied the problems of the confederation.
It always was, but it is only recently that it has been recognized as, a profound truth that no national economy is strong or vibrant if the regional components thereof are weak or disorganized. I am not nearly as happy with things as the speaker who preceded me. The best remark he made was that even his party now recognizes that the user-pay concept really never was much good and should be decently and hurriedly interred, and for that I congratulate him.
I thought that my colleague from York-Sunbury brought forward some constructive suggestions, and I am appalled that we have allowed the advantages of the Atlantic region to lapse. We were brought in, and, indeed, urged-some would say seduced-into confederation 100 and some years ago because of our location. We were in the corridors of commerce; we had the great ice-free ports. Now all this has been lost. Our wonderful merchant navy has withered away. I have said in the Chamber before that whenever I travel abroad, because
80033-57%

April 7, 1978
Maritime Transport
my father was a sailor and I was born in a seacoast village, I go to the harbours and I look at all the flags; but I never find a Canadian flag no matter how crowded the harbour. Whether it is Havana, Piraeus or anywhere else, you do not see the Canadian flag of commerce, yet less than a generation ago we had the fourth largest merchant navy in the world.
I thought that my colleague's remarks about the railways were profoundly true. There is no inherent opposition among the Canadian people to travelling by rail, but we have passed through a situation where it has become very difficult and inconvenient to use that particular mode. Timetables were inconvenient. The basic structures and infrastructures like the roadbed, coaches and so on became uncomfortable. Then, because people abandoned them for comfort, figures were presented which suggested that people did not care for this mode of travel. I predict that even in my time-and I am not nearly as young as the two other members who spoke, though I am not as old as I look, thank God-the day will come-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just mature.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: over 12 years for urgent and important improvements to the Magdalen Islands airport, requests made by my predecessor the Hon. Maurice Sauve and myself since 1968, to be precise, without someone feeling guilty down deep, when expenditures of some $5 to $6 million are being put off or turned down for some four to five years to give that insular population a mode of transport which is the only one, I repeat, during the winter season? How can those expenditures be denied or put off when at the same time we hear that our neighbours in Prince Edward Island-and I am not criticizing what the people of that island get-are being given $21 million for improving the airport in Charlottetown, P.E.I. That airport I visit quite frequently on my way to the Magdalen Islands. Its runways are long enough for jet aircraft to use. The people of the Magdalen Islands and myself find it difficult to accept those hesitations in making the improvements needed for so long and which are basic to the economic development of that isolated part of Canada.
In conclusion, I would say that rail transport, the first and for long the only means of transport in Canada, is still for us in Gaspe the only one on which we can rely, so I welcome with joy and great confidence the federal government endeavour with the new VIA Rail company. I had the opportunity to meet the officials who will administer the company, and the dynamism demonstrated by its president and his staff makes me believe that this new trend in rail transportation will be a success, at least I hope so. I have always said that rail transportation is the best, the most reliable, the least energy consuming and the cheapest transportation means, especially if we relate the cost of railway construction to the enormous amounts we must spend every year for road construction.
So, Mr. Speaker, as I wish to leave some time for my colleague and neighbour from the province of New Brunswick, the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne), in conclusion I wish to congratulate once again the hon. member for York-Sunbury for this very important motion and I ask the government and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard), before they consider the economic development aspect, to find a way to attract people and industries in our areas where regional disparities are tremendous so that these industries will be able to sell their products at a competitive price.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, if my friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) can be patient for another three or four minutes, we may discuss the question. As has been done by previous speakers this afternoon, I add my congratulations to the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) for putting this motion on the order paper. It is indeed useful to have an opportunity to discuss matters such as this. I do not think I
Maritime Transport
will do it with the same ecstasy displayed by his colleague, the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), but I am not in the habit of expressing myself as poetically as that hon. member.
There are three aspects of transportation in Atlantic Canada that are of concern, namely highways, air transport and rail transport. Those are the ones normally talked about. However, there is a fourth aspect that should be mentioned, water transport.
Water transport is very important to us on the Atlantic seaboard. There are some very fine port facilities in Atlantic Canada. We have the opportunity and the potential for further development of them. I am happy that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) is taking a very keen interest in the development of those facilities.
One port that is in urgent need of development is the Port of Miramichi. Before that port can experience any great expansion and the potential that is definitely there, the river must be dredged. I was pleased that the government committed itself to making a definitive study of the economic and technical feasibility of dredging the river. That report, which has now been completed, proves beyond doubt that such a project is both economically and technically feasible. As far as I am concerned, the government is committed to the actual dredging.
There are two or three problems or stumbling blocks, but I am optimistic that they will be overcome. First is money. There is always that problem. However, I am sure it can be solved. There is also the problem of the ocean dumping sites permits which must be overcome. I am confident it will.
I want to take this opportunity to assure fishermen on the Miramichi that dredging should in no way affect their livelihood. If it did, I would not be in support of it. I am convinced that the opposite is true, that the river can be used as a very vital means of transport and economic development for the Miramichi.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) on a point of order.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I only want to take this opportunity to remind members of the opposition that the budget speech will be delivered Monday night at eight o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it is very good of the parliamentary secretary to tell us what we all know, namely that the budget speech will be made Monday night. Can he tell us what item of business will be called Monday afternoon?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I was expecting that question from the hon. member. We intend to proceed with Bill C-19. If

April 7, 1978
Maritime Transport
there is a change, we will let the hon. member know as soon as possible.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' hour has
now expired. It being 4.35 o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 4.35 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, April 10, 1978