1978-12-01

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgency to many Canadians, namely, concern about the imminent return to this country of two FLQ terrorists exiled from Canada in 1970.
Since the feeling persists that some preconditions may be attached to the return of these people, while they retain their Canadian citizenship, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Parker):
That this House requests the appropriate minister to make a full statement on motions as to what the original deal was when the terrorists were exiled in 1970, was it verbal or in writing, and to confirm or deny whether any discussions have taken place with any authorities at any level of government to allow these people back on to Canadian soil in time for Christmas.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for debate at this time would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on an urgent and serious matter, under Standing Order 43, dealing with the lack of safety within our penitentiary system. My motion, therefore, does not require a lengthy preamble as members are well aware of the necessity to improve the system in this regard, as underlined once again in the recent tragic events at Millhaven and Collins Bay penitentiaries. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. McKinley):
That this House instruct the Solicitor General to implement forthwith measures dealing with changes related to the safety within the Canadian penitentiary system as outlined in the parliamentary subcommittee report on the penitentiary system in Canada, currently collecting dust and, further, introduce legislation outlining a return to capital punishment for first degree, premeditated murders.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for debate at this time can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I wish to raise a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that a gash in the hull of the John A. Macdonald, an icebreaker currently on lease to Dome Petroleum, has resulted in a 70,000 gallon oil spill in the Beaufort Sea, and in view of the fact that the oil has not been located, arising from the fact that there was no knowledge of the spill at the time it occurred, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House calls upon the government to undertake a full investigation into the circumstances surrounding one of the largest oil spills in Arctic waters, a spill which has confirmed the fears of many northerners.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be introduced for debate at this time, pursuant to Standing Order 43, only with unanimous agreement. Is there unanimous agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion concerning a
80067-36)4

December 1, 1978
matter of pressing and urgent necessity dealing with research and development.
Following a statement made last June in this House by the minister then responsible for science and technology to the effect that the Government of Canada would use science and technology to strengthen the Canadian economy, increasing public and private contribution to that sector by 1.5 per cent of the gross national product up to 1983, in view of the fact that this national priority has been jeopardized by cuts of over $200 million in that sector, announced on September 8 last by Treasury Board, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That the government put an end to its irresponsible and unilateral action in the field of science and research, which violates the commitments taken by its department last June.


Mr. Speaker:: Under Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SEARCH AND RESCUE
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that Treasury Board is currently deliberating next year's budget for the Canadian search and rescue service, and recognizing that 60 per cent of search and rescue incidents during 1977 occurred on Canada's Pacific coast, whereas only 30 per cent of the search and rescue vessels operate on the west coast, and because the 1978-79 search and rescue plan does not significantly alter this disproportionate situation, thereby putting the lives of west coast seafarers at risk, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That the government move immediately to distribute the resources of the search and rescue program in a more equitable fashion, bearing in mind the disproportionately larger number of rescue calls on the west coast.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PENSIONS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), 1 move:
That this House urges the government, in view of its contention that it recognizes the role of spouses working in the home, to bring before the House, at an early date, legislation to provide pensions for all homemaker spouses, in their own right, equivalent to those earned by contributors to the Canada Pension Plan, thus recognizing in full, for pension purposes, the contribution to our society made by those who work in the home.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and his parliamentary secretary, I will direct my questions to the right hon. Prime Minister.
The Auditor General's report pointed out very clearly that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development does not have any management or control whatsoever. In pointing out some of the cost discrepancies, especially in school construction, the Auditor General indicated that no monitoring whatsoever was done on several projects. The ones he pointed out very dearly were school construction projects, with an estimated cost of $5.6 million and the actual cost ending up being $12.8 million. What is being put in place to ensure that these cost overruns will not occur in the schools, projects already committed for this year?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to take notice of the question and confer with the relevant minister. I think he will be in the House today.


PHASING OUT OF INDIAN ARTS AND CRAFTS PROGRAM
Cecil Morris Smith: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. In the Auditor General's reports for 1977 and 1978, the Auditor General pointed out that the Indian arts and crafts central marketing
December 1, 1978

revolving fund system will be phased out on December 31, 1978, mainly due to mismanagement of the fund.
In view of the fact that $1 million was paid out to Indian people for arts and crafts and that a number of people across the country operate the fund, what action is being taken to supplement this particular fund to ensure a marketing system for native peoples?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to take notice of that question as well. I should remind the hon. member that the Auditor General's report will be discussed in the normal manner in the committee and the hon. member will have a chance to go into detail on all these questions there. Of course, it is his privilege to raise them in the House if he wants, but since I cannot be expected to have answers to every item in the Auditor General's report, it would be useful if I could receive notice of his questions in advance.


Cecil Morris Smith: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my first question, or portions of it, to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Because of the mismanagement and lack of control in his department, the Auditor General pointed out very clearly that major school construction programs across the country in five particular locations had an estimated cost of S5.6 million and the actual cost ended up at SI2.8 million. He pointed out very clearly that this is through lack of management and control within the department. We have-
[DOT] din)


An hon. Member:: "Suspected."


Cecil Morris Smith: -suspected this for quite some time. I wanted to use another word, but I just could not get it out, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to ask the minister what controls he will put in place to ensure that the schools which are now under construction for this year will not have these outrageous cost overruns.


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is probably worthwhile to point out that all these questions were asked and answered at the parliamentary committee during the course of the last two weeks, which suggests to me that maybe the hon. member is getting at a broader question of principle. I should like to address myself to that, particularly in terms of building schools involving Indian labour.
What the hon. member is suggesting is not a matter of controls; he is suggesting that what we should do in terms of reserves is to get a company from outside the reserves to come in and build the schools as cheaply as possible. That is what he is really suggesting and that is what that party stands for. I am saying, on the other hand, that if that party is at all interested in socio economic development on reservations, it must be prepared to use Indian labour, Indian craftsmen and people like that. I am saying that may be more expensive in the
Oral Questions
short term, but it is the only way we can get at these chronic problems.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POST OFFICE
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister arising out of the Auditor General's report.
As the Prime Minister will be aware, the Auditor General audited some 67 contracts which were given out by the Post Office to a value of some $132 million of taxpayers' money. One of the findings of the Auditor General was that the Post Office made a practice of splitting up larger contracts into a series of smaller ones so that the dollar value of those contracts was lower than the amount whereby Treasury Board approval would have to be sought.
Can the Prime Minister assure the House that in future the Post Office will be instructed to avoid trying to circumvent Treasury Board guidelines, and that in future the approval of Treasury Board will be sought for contracts of this nature?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat my previous answer, in the absence of the Postmaster General-


An hon. Member:: Where is he?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is really interested in answers to these questions, this matter is being debated in the parliamentary committee. I understand he will not be on television as much there, but he will get the facts and he will then be able to make up his mind whether he wants to advocate a change in policy.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is quite testy today.


An hon. Member:: You should know.


Henry Perrin Beatty: In view of the fact that he is apparently incapable of getting the President of the Treasury Board or the Postmaster General into the House to answer questions-we received word from the Postmaster General's office only 15 minutes before question period that he would not be present- we have no choice but to question the Prime Minister on the activities of his government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker-


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Prime Minister would answer the question after I have asked it. I want to ask the Prime Minister about a further finding of the Auditor

December 1, 1978
Oral Questions
General, namely, that it was the practice of the Post Office Department, in instances where contracts had expired, to continue to pay for services being provided by contractors without going back to Treasury Board to get new contracts signed or the approval of Treasury Board.
Will the Prime Minister give Canadian taxpayers the assurance that in future this practice will be discontinued and that Treasury Board approval will be sought in instances where the Post Office intends to go ahead after contracts have expired?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, regarding the presence or the absence of ministers, I think we have a very full attendance of ministers here this morning. They have departmental duties and duties in other parts of the country. If hon. members are really interested in getting information, as provided by the rules, a simple notice would be the way by which the minister could either provide the answer or make sure an acting minister would be present.


An hon. Member:: Their offices will not even tell us whether they will be here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: The Postmaster General's office did not know where he was.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I understand that he was home all morning.


Henry Perrin Beatty: When I phoned, his office did not even know where he was and did not know whether he would be here.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Did you hear that, Mr. Speaker?


An hon. Member:: The Speaker cannot answer.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course he cannot. That is why I suggest these questions should not be asked of him in the form of conversation. Ministers have duties about the country-


An hon. Member:: Where is Joe?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, where is the Leader of the Opposition?


An hon. Member:: He is in your riding, in Mount Royal.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who is on television now?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not at all sure that anybody phoned him this morning to find out where he was, but if-


Mr. Stevens:: Did you want to question him?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Who is running the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I try to be helpful to the House. If the opposition wants the answer to a question-


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: This is the Gong show.


An hon. Member:: Will somebody hit the gong?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I see the Speaker reaching for the hook, but he is looking in that direction.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have certainly been cast in many different roles over the years, but I think the relationship between television here and television elsewhere can be happily left alone.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, since this is the Prime Minister's day for being helpful in the House, I would like to direct a question to him. Some five years ago the Prime Minister's government made a commitment to the Canadian people, as enshrined in the Two-Price Wheat Act, that wheat used for human consumption in Canada would be subsidized by the government paying the difference between the floor price and the world price. That legislation was to operate for seven years.
Today, on the order paper, there is a bill from the minister in charge of the Wheat Board which will remove that subsidy, thereby adding some $30 a year to the grocery bill of every family in Canada. Does the Prime Minister not consider that this is a breach of faith and that his government is breaking its word to the Canadian people by terminating this commitment two years before it was due to expire?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, obviously this is an argument that the hon. member will want to put forward when the bill is debated in the House. We have presented this bill in the expectation that the results would be better, generally, for Canadian farmers and consumers in the long run.
I would remind the hon. member that during this period of seven years there have been many measures, including some adopted just last week, and currently before the House, which have transferred to Canadian consumers-particularly the less favoured ones in our nation-various forms of assistance including indexation of pensions, increased pensions, family allowances, and so on. One cannot discuss this subject in the abstract without looking at the total picture and the general assistance given to those consumers in Canada who need
December 1, 1978

assistance. The government will be very happy to discuss this matter with the hon. member when the bill is called for second reading.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I understand the Scriptures to say that the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, but 1 did not know that it applied to the Prime Minister. He is telling us that the government has given us certain legislation to help the less fortunate people in Canada, and this piece of legislation takes it away. It seems to me that that is no argument at all.
Would the Prime Minister tell the House why it is that a subsidy which at the present time amounts to about 3.3 cents per loaf is to be removed, when it is estimated by the Bakery Council of Canada that as a result the increase in the price of bread will be seven cents, plus another five cents for increased energy, labour and transportation costs? It seems to me that for the government to save 3.3 cents per loaf, and for consumers to have to pay seven cents extra per loaf, is not very good economics: it is not carrying out the program to which the government claims it is committed, namely, to hold down inflation at this critical time.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is bringing forth figures of which I and, I believe, the government have no substantial knowledge. It is probably a hypothetical calculation. If the hon. member wants to give notice of that question, I will draw it to the attention of our statisticians, who will find out whether it has any foundation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the figures were produced by the Bakery Council of Canada and they have been drawn to the attention of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board already by my colleague, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville; so the government are fully aware of the facts, if they would take the trouble to look into the matter.
I have a final supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Every time there is an increase in price at the source of a commodity, every person who handles that commodity adds their mark-up, with the result that a 3.3 cent increase in the price of the wheat that goes into a loaf of bread winds up as at least seven cents to the consumer, and perhaps much more.
Would the Prime Minister commit himself to seeing to it personally that the minister responsible sets up the machinery to properly monitor this matter as it has not been monitored in the past and see that the Canadian people are not gouged as a result of the removal of this subsidy on domestically-consumed wheat?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as with the very substantial reduction in sales tax announced in the budget, and as with this particular measure, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs did his best to make sure the system works and that savings or non-savings are adequately accounted for.
Oral Questions
Once again, after the third question from the hon. member, it becomes obvious there is a difference of approach between the two parties on this particular matter. It is a basic difference. The hon. member would like the Canadian government to subsidize everybody who consumes bread: him, me, the poor, the rich, and everybody else. Our approach is that we should help those who are really needy in Canada. That is why we are increasing the old age pension following our August announcement and subsequent legislation: parliament will increase old age pensions by $240 per year. That is why families with children who are in the medium or lower income classes will receive an additional $140 per child, per year.
This is our approach to help those in Canada who are in need of help, rather than subsidizing all Canadians everywhere, all the time, for everything. It is a different approach between the parties.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is the minister aware of a report of the Toronto Star to the effect that in 1977 the General Motors Corporation spent $1.4 billion worldwide for research and development and that the company has stated it cannot say how much has been invested in Canada because the federal government has yet to explain what it means by research and development?
Could the minister tell the House right now what he means by research and development?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I believe a long discussion about the definition of "research and development" is too general to be dealt with in question period.
Perhaps I could respond to the substance of the hon. member's question by saying that, while I have not seen the article in the Toronto Star, I can assure him the government is most interested in persuading automobile manufacturers, through incentives or other methods, to do more research and development in this country. That was very much the line my predecessor took with the automobile companies. We have not yet succeeded, but I can assure the hon. member we are going to redouble our efforts.
[ Translation]


GENERAL MOTORS-INQUIRY AS TO INVESTMENT IN CANADA FOR RESEARCH
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. While waiting for the minister to read that

December 1, 1978
Oral Questions
article, I would ask him whether he or any official in his department has contacted General Motors to determine what amount the company has invested in Canada in 1977 in the field of research.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to make inquiries either through my officials or directly myself to senior officials of General Motors to find out the numbers.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question: it deals with questions that were asked yesterday and the day before with reference to the FLQ and particularly national security.
As the original deal made between the federal government and Jacques Cossette-Trudel and his wife Louise Lanctot, whereby they agreed to go into exile in return for the safe release of Mr. Cross, the British diplomat who was kidnapped, all took place in an atmosphere where civil rights were set aside and the War Measures Act was in full force-there were 497 arrested, 62 charged and only 2 convicted-has the Prime Minister, any member of the Trudeau government, any federal agency, the Department of External Affairs, or any embassy, had a discussion with any members of the Quebec government of late with reference to this matter, inparticular with the minister of justice for the province of Quebec, as to the return of these two people so they can enjoy Christmas at home, rather than away; and if not, why not? Why has the government shirked its responsibility?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member has given a bit of the background, I might remind him that in the days and years preceding the special measures of October there had been a succession of more than 100 kidnappings, murders, derailing of trains, raiding of arsenals, bombings, blowings-up and everything else.


An hon. Member:: Will you answer the question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member gave some background and I would like him to be reminded of these facts. Since the government responded with firm action to prevent any parallel power from exercising authority of a political nature in this country and getting the release of prisoners as was asked, with great ransoms, none of these things happened. As a matter of fact-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -most countries which had accepted other ways of dealing with violence either before or after 1970, and tried to deal more leniently with outbreaks of violence, have since learned that the Canadian way is the proper way of doing it. They have followed our approach.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In so far as the question is concerned, Mr. Speaker, 1 cannot understand, for the life of me, why this hon. member is interested in the government doing something to get these people back for Christmas.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure about getting them back for Christmas: I hope they are over there at New Year's. I am asking questions in reference to this government's responsibility, because yesterday the Prime Minister-who wanted to make a speech today, and he accomplished that- said-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: -in answer to a question put by the Leader of the Opposition:
They were to the effect that if ever they returned, they would be prosecuted with the full force of the law.
I ask this question: was the deal in writing? Did the Quebec government at the time agree with the deal? How can the Prime Minister say they will be subject to due process of the law, if he has refused to talk to any ministers of Quebec, although the headlines in the paper say that they will be home for Christmas? He has refused to discuss it with the minister of justice of Quebec, or the Premier of Quebec, and he has no information for the House. It was his government that made a deal to put these people in exile, and he is making fun about the situation as to Christmas. I ask him, how can he assure this country that if they return they will be subject to due process of the law, if he leaves it to the provincial government without having any conservation or discussion with them? It is beyond anyone's imagination or comprehension.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member uses the words that we have refused to discuss this with the legitimate authorities of Quebec. We have not refused; we have not been asked. I just say that it is passing strange to me that the hon. member suggests it is our duty to approach the Quebec government and initiate discussions on this matter. We have no knowledge that the Cossette-Trudels want to come back. They have not informed us. We have taken no initiatives. I repeat, it is strange to me that a member of the Tory opposition would suggest it is our responsibility to take the initiative to ensure that they do come back.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, quoting from a newspaper, it says "The Canadian embassy"-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: -"in Paris"-
December 1, 1978


An hon. Member:: Do you have to read the press?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: 1 do not know why members are so excited, if they have nothing to hide.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The article says that the Canadian embassy in Paris told the Journal that the Cossette-Trudels had not applied for renewal of their passports, but the officials of that embassy will give them travelling permits to come back to Canada. That is the Prime Minister's own embassy. I thought the ambassador from France, who is now with us, was probably advising the Prime Minister on his dangerous domestic affairs and might have discussed this matter.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot be responsible for what is written in the press. I hope the hon. member will discuss it with these people and find out what questions were asked and what answers were given. I cannot really answer for what the press writes and what the hon. member chooses to believe.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications: in her absence I will address it to the parliamentary secretary.
The hon. member for Eglinton was ruled out of order a day or so ago after posing a rather ham-handed question to the minister on a very important issue to some 200,000 Toronto households and this House of Commons. Would the parliamentary secretary ask the minister to intercede with the Canadian Radio-Television Commission to see if the regulation wise, common sense foolish CRTC attitude which has led to the removal of the question period live daily from the community channel of Rogers Cable TV in Toronto can be changed and this service re-established pending more longterm decisions on the broadcasting of proceedings of this House?


Mr. C. Douglas (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. member that I have seen the editorial referred to by him, but I would advise him that it is not totally accurate. Rogers Telecommunications in Toronto have been providing coverage of the question period, via a community channel, on a temporary basis only in compliance with the CRTC public ruling announced in February, 1978. That announcement stipulated that the cable company should do so on a special programming channel, but if alternate channel space was not available they would allow them to broadcast the proceedings of the House via the community channel, on a temporary basis.
There has been no new ruling by the CRTC on the subject since that time. The Toronto firm is simply complying with the ruling made by the CRTC in February of this year. I will certainly pass on the representation to the minister so that she may answer it more fully at a later time.
Oral Questions PUBLIC WORKS


DESTRUCTION OF USABLE LIGHT BULBS
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Public Works I would like to ask the acting minister if he could tell the House what happened in that department to cause an employee to smash $8,000 worth of usable light bulbs, as reported in the Globe and Mail this morning? It seems to me rather strange that a picture would be taken if there was not some motive behind this incident.
[ Translation]


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Acting Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I will report the incident to my colleague and I am sure he will order an inquiry to find out the reasons for it.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, while that investigation is going on, if it is undertaken, will the department try to discover whether or not this damage was done in retaliation for the minister's recent announcement that 100 positions in his department will become surplus, in light of the fact that the department continues to hire many outside consultants at considerable cost?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure my colleague will want that investigation to encompass all aspects of the question.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries. The minister has announced a six months' freeze as of November 7, 1978, on new entries to the inshore ground fishery for all of Atlantic Canada except Labrador, giving as an explanation for his action the need for a better form of control because of the tremendous increase in effort in the inshore fishery in the past few years.
Since Canada is still licensing hundreds of large foreign trawlers within our 200-mile economic zone, whose operations are still depleting offshore and inshore fishery resources, has the minister considered decreasing the number of foreign fishing permits to be issued next year, rather than imposing further restrictions on Canadian fishermen?


Hon. Rom6o LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised that the hon. member, who is familiar with the fishery, would put this type of question seriously. He knows very well that the alternative to a greater fishing effort by the inshore fishermen for traditional species is not to reduce the effort of foreign nations for

December 1, 1978
Oral Questions
non-utilized and non-traditional species. It really does not make sense.
I may say to the hon. member that the arithmetic is very simple: inside and outside the 200-mile zone we catch 76 per cent of the traditional species for which we have markets and in which our industry is interested. If the hon. member advocates a policy of moving all the foreign fishing effort outside the 200-mile zone, I have to ask him three questions. First, how would he guarantee Canadian interests outside 200 miles? Second, what currency would he use for access to foreign markets? Third, how would he protect Canadian salmon on the west coast and the east coast which is away offshore on the high seas?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to give the Minister of Fisheries a private briefing when we have more time, so that he will be aware of the true facts. We have restricted entry into our deep sea scallop fishery, restricted entry into our lobster fishery, and now restricted entry into the inshore groundfish fishery, which makes the minister the czar or comptroller general of all fishing in Canada.
Since the declaration of a 200-mile limit was supposed to provide new opportunities for Canadian fishermen, both inshore and offshore and I remind the minister of that-when can we expect an announcement from him which will indicate that Canadians can plan to take advantage of our fisheries resources and expand their fisheries operations, rather than restrict them, which appears to be the only program this government has to offer?


Mr. LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would read the statement that I made to the first ministers' conference, especially the appendix attached to it, he would see that the opportunities are very much in the pockets of Canadian fishermen, whose income has risen 50 per cent since 1974 and whose return in the present year is really quite dramatic. That is one issue.
The issue of development for under-utilized species-underutilized indicates that our industry has had no interest in those species in the past-is another issue. On this matter, I repeat what I have said many times in this House and in newspaper articles that have been published. If Canadians want to apply for licences for under-utilized species only-that is, if they do not want to compete with the existing fleet that is now finally getting a decent return-I am willing to look at their applications. I might add, however, that I am not going to mortgage the benefits of a 200-mile zone for only three or four large companies on the east coast.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Defence. I have here a copy of a transcript of the November 17 hearing of the People's Food Commission in Alberta which points out that farmers in the Cold Lake, Alberta, area have been troubled with bombs falling from Canadian military aircraft at the nearby base, damaging fields and some farm buildings. There is one incident of a military jet crashing within 500 feet of a farmer's home.
In view of the obvious concern about safety which these farmers have for themselves and their farmsteads, can the minister assure us that planes with bombs from this base will not fly near or over residential property, thus threatening the lives and safety of the farmers involved?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, certainly all safety precautions are taken. The only accident I am aware of was one practice bomb going through a grain silo, I believe it was, where compensation was offered. It was not a bomb that exploded. In 1974, I believe, there was a crash in a farmer's field. There is aviation training there that is obviously a hazard. But every possible precaution is taken to minimize those dangers.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: At the same commission hearing, a military officer from the base said:
Mufflers fall off cars-you can't expect perfection when you're attaching bombs to a plane.
Surely the minister and his department can do better than that. Since these planes fly at about 650 miles an hour, at some 250 feet, over farm buildings and farmsteads, can the minister assure the farmers there will be safety precautions taken and that adequate compensation will be paid, as there are some cases where farmers have not been compensated at all for damage caused by bombs or aircraft that crash within 500 feet of a farmer's house?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Certainly I can give the assurance that every possible safety precaution has been taken. If there has not been compensation, it is because there probably has not been a compensation claim. Whenever damage is done, compensation is offered. I know of cases where the compensation has not even been accepted, and other cases where it has not been questioned at all.


AGREEMENT WITH ALBERTA ON DISCOUNTING PRICE OF NATURAL GAS
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. There have been widespread reports that the Gov-
December 1, 1978

ernment of Canada has reached agreement with the government of Alberta-or agreement in principle, in any event-to discount the price of Alberta natural gas to be paid by new customers east of Alberta.
Can the minister confirm that agreement has been reached in principle? If so, what are the main outlines of the agreement? Alternatively, if agreement has not yet been reached in principle, is the Government of Canada seeking such agreement? If so, why? What are the policy reasons for it? What details are there in respect of the agreement that the minister can tell the House this morning?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that an agreement was reached with the government of Alberta with respect to discount pricing or incentive pricing of natural gas. That was made clear by my statement and the response of the Premier of Alberta at the first ministers' conference earlier this week. The elements of it were to provide an incentive or discount with regard to natural gas going into new markets in eastern Canada, for a fixed duration.
There were other provisions in terms of principles with respect to rolling in at the Alberta border. That would apply to all markets east of the Alberta border. The reason, of course, is to maximize in Canada the market for a Canadian resource and, in the process, to displace foreign crude oil; in other words, to pursue as aggressively as we can our objective of self-reliance for Canada.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Will the minister tell us if this agreement is linked in any way to the over-all question of the export of natural gas? What sort of term is involved with regard to this agreement? Is there a phase-out? When the minister speaks of new markets east of Alberta, is he talking about the residential as well as the industrial market?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, there was no linking of this set of principles in the decision to set up a joint task force between the Government of Canada and the government of Alberta with regard to exports of natural gas. At no time did we trade or negotiate on the basis of additional exports of natural gas. The agreement was addressing itself exclusively to the maxim, ization of the Canadian market for natural gas.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Is the government coming close to an agreement in principle with the Inuit Tapirisat? If so, when does he expect he might be completing that agreement in principle?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I take it the hon.
Oral Questions
member is referring to land claims with respect to the eastern Arctic. No, I do not believe I can say, today, that we are close to an agreement in principle.


Erik Nielsen: Can the minister assure the people of the Northwest Territories that he will not perpetuate the bad example he set in coming to an agreement with COPE by not consulting the elected representatives of the people before reaching that agreement? Will he assure us that he will consult the elected members of the Northwest Territories Council before coming to that agreement in principle with the Inuit Tapirisat?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, there were consultations with the council. I think it is fair to say-the hon. member is making this point-the levels of consultation were not adequate from the point of view of some members of the council. I think I can give the hon. member a history of the levels of consultation and when they had the documents prior to a decision being taken.
Allowing for that, I can say that in principle we are involving the government of the Northwest Territories in the land claims discussion. A member of the council has been designated to be a claims person, and I am working very closely with those who are involved to ensure that when we get to the point of an agreement in principle, all parties to the agreement in principle in the Northwest Territories, are supportive. I think it is important to note that with respect to the settlement with the Inuvialuit, the mayor of Inuvik recently said he thought it was a very good settlement. I am sure his decision and judgment are respected by the hon. member.


INCREASE IN PRICE OF CRUDE OIL-EFFECT ON EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS TO ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the questions asked by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham: it is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
My question concerns the continuing controversy surrounding the price of domestic crude oil. Will the minister tell the House what effect a $1 a barrel increase in the price of oil would have on equalization payments to the Atlantic provinces, and what collective effect such an increase would have on consumers in those provinces? In other words, are some premiers supporting an increase in the price in order to increase their equalization grants, at the expense of consumers?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the question suffers from two distinct disabilities. First, it would require a very long expose by the minister. The second matter about the

December 1, 1978
Oral Questions
provincial premiers introduces an element of argument. The minister may be able to make a brief answer; I do not know.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think I can deal with the question very quickly. As I understand the question, there are three points. Yes, there would be an effect on equalization payments, the transfer from the federal government to the provincial governments, if the increase did not go forward. The provincial governments would receive less, just as the federal government would receive less.
The second point is that there would be about four times as much benefit to consumers in the provinces. The third point 1 would like to make is that this affects more than just consumers; there is the whole question of a region, and that involves workers as well as consumers.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, as neither the minister nor the parliamentary secretary are in the House today, and after the fatuous remarks of the Prime Minister, I would like to reserve my question until some time when the minister is present, at which time I would like to raise a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Fraser Valley East.


NARCOTICS
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. This past summer the British Columbia government submitted a proposal for cost-sharing in the health entry plan for heroin users. I would like to ask the minister if the federal government has decided on the level of support for that British Columbia program.


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the B.C. health entry plan has been discussed for months between the B.C. provincial government and the federal government. There have been numerous meetings of various federal ministers and the B.C. government. If B.C. wants to isolate one health problem and identify it as a special problem in that province, in order to get more money for health services, we cannot accept that because every other province could then identify special problems. Such problems might be with regard to industrial health factors, and so forth.
I do not have with me the exact amount, but B.C. is receiving in this current fiscal year about $586 million under the established finance plan-EFP-which pays for health services.
British Columbia also receives a large sum of money for cost-sharing in social services. All that together should cover every need for assistance with regard to facilities that B.C. wants to develop for the treatment of drug addicts. I have given the B.C. government a commitment regarding my demonstration program called "Alternatives", which is a great success although carried on a small scale. We have funded that program for three years and an additional $100,000 will be allocated to it.


BRITISH COLUMBIA-SIZE OF RCMP DRUG SQUAD
Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Solicitor General. Given the fact that 60 per cent of drug-related crime in Canada is committed in British Columbia, and that only 25 per cent of the RCMP's drug squad manpower is assigned to British Columbia, does the minister intend to increase the RCMP commitment in British Columbia so that drug offences can be dealt with more effectively in the future?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, a demand has been made by provincial authorities that there be an increase in the complement of the RCMP, and that matter is under consideration.
 * *


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion: it is in relation to my continuing efforts to have his department take a realistic look at applying the DREE formula to central Ontario.
Has the minister looked into this matter, and when will his department start applying the DREE formula on the basis of need, rather than on the basis of other considerations?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, we are indeed looking into the economic situation of all the regions within the provinces. As to the many representations made by the hon. member that his region be declared a designated area and as such become entitled to direct assistance to industries, I do not think that I am ready to do that yet. At the same time, we are looking into possible ways to implement a new program. Just now, we are having discussions with the Ontario government, with a view to assisting with the economic development of a number of peripheral regions in that province. We have signed an agreement recently and we hope that, within the next few months, we can conclude the current discussions and hopefully provide solutions to some of the problems the hon. member has mentioned.

December 1, 1978


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I will direct my question to the Prime Minister.
As the matter of the ailing Soviet dissident, Danylo Shumuk, has been raised in this House many times in recent months, and recognizing that an official plea was made to Soviet authorities some four weeks ago today at the unanimous request of this House, will the Prime Minister inform this House whether a reply has been received from the Soviet government and what further action he will take to pursue the prompt release of Danylo Shumuk?


Mr. Louis Duclos (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for providing me with my first opportunity to reply in the House. Early in October, we were advised that Mr. Shumuk's health had greatly deteriorated. On the strength of that report, the government expressed to the Soviet authorities its deep concern and asked that Mr. Shumuk's case be reconsidered on humanitarian grounds, in order to allow him to leave Russia and come to Canada. The External Affairs department was then informed by the Soviet authorities that Mr. Shumuk's state of health, although poor, was not as critical as it had been reported, something of which his parents here in Canada have now been informed. While it is true that we have no way of verifying this information, it is of some comfort to know that Mr. Shumuk's state of health is improving and we hope that the Soviet authorities will eventually allow him to join his relatives in Canada.

Point of Order-Mr. C. Smith
being paid on that income. I hope the hon. member will help me to speed up passage of legislation in this regard.


Mr. Rae:: Mr. Speaker, the difference between what banks charge and the prime rate has gone up from 1.49 per cent last year to 1.8 per cent this year as a direct result of the increases in the interest rate which the government has brought about.
Could the minister tell us whether he does not think it is time to introduce measures to see that these excess bank profits are used in such a way that we can guarantee low interest rates for mortgages and small businesses?


Mr. Chretien:: Mr. Speaker, I think we will have an occasion to debate that matter in committee, because the Bank Act is in front of the committee at this moment. Of course, one way to make sure that there is a better rate of return, or more competition in the system, is to pass the Bank Act amendments under which we will be providing more competition to the banking system in this land.


Mr. Gillies:: Through foreign banks.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am not doctrinaire about foreign banks or our banks. I think the hon. member should talk to his seatmate and to other members of his party who are in favour of having more competition, even from foreign banks. If you are in agreement, you should discuss that amongst yourselves, since your party supports our proposition.


James McPhail Gillies: Why do you downgrade Canadians?


POINTS OF ORDER
Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. I know he wants to get away, but I want to ask him this question. It arises out of the announcement yesterday that bank profits are up 33 per cent to a whopping $1 billion. The minister is asking Canadian workers to keep their wage demands to increases of 6 per cent and 7 per cent. Can the minister tell us what action he plans to take to see that bank profits are controlled and even reduced?


Cecil Morris Smith: Mr. Speaker, most probably I would not have had to rise on this point of order had the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Faulkner) been in his seat at the proper time this morning. I did not have a chance to put another supplementary question to him, so in response to the minister's reply to the question I feel I should rise at this time on a point of order.
In my question I dealt with the Auditor General's report. I will read one short passage-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will have to persuade me first that he has a procedural point.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think the law applies to banks as it does to any other institution. Banks pay taxes like any other corporation. In the budget I decided to change some of the rules because I felt that in some cases there was too much income and that taxes were not


Cecil Morris Smith: My procedural point is that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development actually insulted this side of the House and misrepresented facts when he said we were more in favour of taking contractors from outside the Indian communities to construct schools than we

December 1, 1978
Point of Order-Mr. H. Johnston
were of employing local Indian people in the community. This is false, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has had the occasion to put that on the record, which is a small benefit he gained by way of a point of order. However, I am sure he will recognize, there is no surprise here, that his side of the House disagrees with the minister's assessment, and essentially it remains a disagreement, which I am sure will be pursued vigorously through the other vehicles available. I do not think I could begin to consider that, on a procedural basis, as a point of order.


MR. JOHNSTON (OKANAGAN-KOOTENAY)-RECOGNITION BY CHAIR DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I would refer to my point of order in terms of the right to reserve a question and also as the dilemma of a member who, almost without exception, has to wait three days before gaining recognition. Since this is the second day of rising, I did not really expect to be recognized by you, Mr. Speaker, today. I know, for example, that the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Raines) has risen on many more days than I have and has not been recognized either. I was not anticipating being recognized today and I was laying the groundwork for recognition early next week.
The question I have raised in the House before is one on which I have sent a written notice to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) some months ago. It has to do with the urban transportation assistance program and the signing of the master agreement on that program. I have asked about it repeatedly, and was caught in this position previously on a Friday when I was recognized but only the parliamentary secretary was here, and he said he would bring it to the minister's attention. That did not work. Today the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) indicated again that all he could do with that sort of question was to bring it to the minister's attention. I would like very much to be recognized on a day when the minister is here, but I know of no way to assure myself of that possibility save by trying to be recognized this day, in the hope you would ignore me, Mr. Speaker, until Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday.


An hon. Member:: Now he will.


Howard Earl Johnston: That is the danger one runs, as has been pointed out very clearly by somebody on the other side. For me, as a backbencher who represents a constituency with a most serious problem because the entire community lives in dread of repeated accidents on a level crossing, which is the only access to and egress from that community, it is an extremely important matter. I hear that the treaty is sitting on the minister's desk. People in my riding wonder why it has not been signed. I would like to hear from the minister on it, and I request, in all sincerity, the right to reserve this question and to be recognized next week.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member really feel he is being fair to the House? Today, his colleagues, the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson), the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott), and particularly the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Siddon), as he has seen, have all been attempting to seek the floor on earlier days.
There are obvious constraints under which we operate. I do not know if the hon. member is seriously suggesting that he should be able to put in a request to be recognized on a specific day. If he would, I am sure all of his colleagues would want to join him in that and make reservations to be recognized during the question period. It would be a wonderful idea and would certainly take a great deal of strain from my position, but if he thinks he can make a feasible arrangement of custom-made invitations to members to be recognized in specific circumstances in the question period, I would invite him to organize that with his caucus and see how far it would get.


PRIVILEGE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is still in the House and I am pleased about that because the question of privilege I want to raise involves him and the answers he gave today to the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). The question of privilege relates to those questions and to an intervention by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) the other day with respect to Cossette-Trudel and Lanctot, and whether or not there had been any contact with the Canadian embassy. At that time there were stories in the newspapers, as the Prime Minister will recall.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Is that a point of order?


Walter David Baker: No, a question of privilege.
As the Prime Minister will recall, there were stories in the newspapers. The Secretary of State for External Affairs was asked specifically by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) whether there had been any contact by those two with the Canadian embassy with a view to their return to Canada.
I want to allay any suspicion the Prime Minister may have with respect to this party's position on it. We would be delighted if they would never come back to Canada and would stay away. In any event, the answer given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs was to the effect that there had been no such contact, and I recollect that the minister was quite emphatic with respect to that.
We are now faced with stories in the press, which might or might not be true-I do not know. The purport of the question put by the hon. member for Calgary North today was with respect to the substance to the stories. Also there was a question to the Prime Minister of whether or not there had
December 1, 1978

been any contact with the embassy, as reported in the newspapers only incidentally.
The Prime Minister, by skating around the question, trying to turn it, making it into some form of comic relief with respect to a matter that is quite serious to the Canadian public, has left the impression with the House that he really does not know. His ambassador in France is in town today, I do not know for what purpose, but I think it would be important, if there is a change from the answer given previously by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, that the House be advised of it.
The question really is-and I think the House and the country are entitled to know-whether Cossette-Trudel and Lanctot made contact with the Canadian embassy with respect to their return to Canada and, if so, when, and any other particulars asked by the hon. member, because the position may very well have changed. That was the purport of the question.
Second, and this is a thing that does concern me, I am worried that the Prime Minister-who had such great interest, understandably, at the time of the FLQ incidents in Quebec and the release of Mr. Cross, with respect to negotiating, discussing and perhaps initiating discussions with the provincial government at that time-should be so disinterested now in initiating those discussions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Whether or not the hon. member has an interest in that, it has no basis in procedure. I do not know if the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) wants to take this opportunity to respond, but this is not a procedural point in any way.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I agree with Your Honour. It is a complete abuse of procedure. There is no question of privilege involved, and you recognize it, except that the hon. member has now put on the record things which presumably should have come during the question period, since it is a repetition of a question. I can only but answer that question again, lest the impression be gained that the answer has not been given.
A question was asked of me by the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) yesterday. I believe it was asked of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) a few days before that. We gave a very clear, unequivocal and unambiguous answer: no, there had been no contact between the Canadian government and the Cossette-Trudels, or the embassy and the Cossette-Trudels. There had been no contact with the Quebec government, which was the question asked this morning by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). The answer was very clear; there have been none.
I do not know why the hon. member is getting up and saying that somehow we were ambiguous, and that he is puzzled because we had been interested in Mr. Cross' fate in 1970 and we were not following up the goings-on of the Cossette-Trudels, or any of the others who are abroad and who might have
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
been involved in the FLQ. I do not know why the suggestion was made.
In so far as turning the question, I made very clear to the hon. member for Calgary North, saying that it was the government's responsibility to contact the Quebec government in the whole matter of getting the Cossette-Trudels back to Canada before Christmas-


Some hon. Members:: He did not say that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not say that it is our responsibility. We went over that. The question was very clear.


An hon. Member:: Don't mislead the House.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It was very clear. Perhaps he did not ask it the way he intended to ask, but there is no duty on the part of the government to contact either the Quebec authorities or the Cossette-Trudels. We have not done that, and we say that there is no responsibility on our part to do that. The hon. member for Calgary North suggested that there was a responsibility on our part.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, 1 see the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is leaving. At no time- I am glad to see the Prime Minister returning. At no time did I make any suggestion, either in the preamble or the question, that my party or myself wanted any of these FLQ people back to Canada.
I suggest to the Prime Minister that he is hiding the facts. He made a deal, sir.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He made a deal.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a point which began without a basis in procedure and, as always, whenever the House permits itself to drift along on bad procedural grounds, it gets into greater and greater problems.
The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) was entitled to the opportunity he just had to straighten the record, because some reference was made to his own intent in the language which he used in his questions. 1 should like him to take a brief opportunity to straighten the record, and that will be the end of this procedural matter.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you very much for your graciousness. At no time did I suggest, either in my question or my preamble-and the record will show that-that I wanted, or my party wanted them home at any time, whether it was Christmas, New Year's or Thanksgiving. I suggested that it was in the newspaper they were going to be home for Christmas, that there had been discussions with the Canadian embassy in Paris, and that members of the Quebec government made that suggestion, from the newspaper article. 1 wanted to find out from the Prime Minister if that was correct.


An hon. Member:: And he said, no.

December 1, 1978
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He made the deal, his government, to send these people out of the country. Was it in writing or was it verbally? What were the ramifications of that agreement? That is what I want to know, and the onus and responsibility are on the Prime Minister and the government in the manner in which they have handled the case.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has just stated very clearly that I was hiding the facts. I should like him to withdraw that accusation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Boulanger:: Shame, shame!


Mr. Speaker:: The exact language used in terms of hiding facts is one which comes very close to an unparliamentary expression. It is not an expression of deceiving or misleading the House, lying, or anything of that nature, but it comes very close. Again it points out the difficulty that once beginning on a point which is not in fact based on procedure, the subsequent contributions to it become more and more dangerous in terms of the procedures of the House. This is the risk which has arisen.
I wonder if the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) at this time would reconsider the force of the expression he used, or whether he would prefer to reflect on it and examine the record to see himself how it conforms with precedents. It is acceptable to me either way. I simply point out to the House the danger we get into the minute we embark upon a point which, in the first place, did not have a proper basis in procedure.
A question has been raised respecting the propriety of that language. As usual, I think the hon. member ought to have an opportunity, as the Chair will, to examine the record to see whether, on precedent, it is the kind of remark that I must insist upon him withdrawing. The hon. member may want to have the same reflection over the weekend.
[ Translation]


Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) to have the courage to say if he intends to follow your instructions or to withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: I have dealt with that point, and I think it should stay that way.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Robert K. Andras (for the Minister of Transport) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-24, to amend the Two-Price Wheat Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 163, 167, 217, 245, 273 and 277.
I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

roger Leblanc aviation ltd.


Mr. Roche: Is CIDA purchasing a Cessna 310 11 Turbo Aircraft from Roger LeBlanc Aviation Ltd., St. Jean, Quebec, at a total contract value of $236,800 and, if so, for what purpose?


Louis Duclos: Yes, CIDA purchased such an aircraft from Roger LeBlanc Ltd., St-Jean, Quebec, to replace the one employed in a civil aviation project in Madagascar and which crashed three years ago.


Mr. Roche: Is it the position of the Government that Israel acted in accordance with the spirit of UN Security Council Resolution 425 in turning over the areas of southernmost Lebanon which it evacuated on June 13, 1978 to Christian militia units rather than to UNIFIL?


Louis Duclos: UNIFIL was established under UN Security Council Resolution 425 to confirm the withdrawal of Israeli forces, restore international peace and security and assist the government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in southern Lebanon. The first of UNI-FIL's tasks was accomplished June 13, 1978 when Israeli forces withdrew from Lebanon. UNIFIL confirmed this to the secretary-general who thereupon informed the security council. Nevertheless, the inability of the force to deploy fully within its active area of operations due to the reluctance of some local armed groups to co-operate with it is a continuing source of difficulty. The full co-operation and influence of all
December 1, 1978

the parties concerned is essential in creating the conditions under which that deployment can take place.


Mr. Jones: 1.	What was the dollar value of the revolving credit facility which was signed in New York by Canada's Minister of Finance on June 23, 1978? How long is this credit available? Is it available in descending amounts as the term of the loan expires?
2.	What is the interest rate being charged? Is there a charge made even if the credit is not used and if so, what is it?
3.	What is the total amount of money which Canada has available as international credit currently? What is the daily rate of interest which is being paid on this money?


Mr. Alan Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: 1. U.S. $3 billion; eight years; yes.
2.	The average of the three lowest Prime Rates of a group of reference banks on the first day of each interest period; yes; a standby fee of one-quarter of one per cent per annum on the daily unused portion.
3.	Canada has a standby credit with the Canadian banks for U.S. $2.5 billion and a similar credit with Citicorp and other international banks for U.S. $3 billion. Canada has drawn down U.S. $1.4 billion from the Canadian banks and U.S. $1 billion from the Citicorp Syndicate. Therefore the amount of money available as international credit, from these two sources, is U.S. $3.1 billion. The daily rate of interest being paid on this amount is one-quarter of one per cent.


Mr. Epp: Did the government provide aid to offset tornado damage to any place in Canada and, if so, in what form and in what amount?


Alan Gray Martin: Yes, in respect of tornado damage in the Sarnia-London area occurring on May 21 and May 23, 1953.
Payments were made to the following counties in the amounts as shown:
County of Huron	$18,186.21
County of Lambton	$10,722.04
County of Middlesex	$77,927.21
County of Oxford	$16,756.62
County of Perth	$13,869.92
Total	$137,462.00


Mr. Epp: From June 1, 1974 to date, what lawyers in the Constituency of Provencher were given work by the Department of Public Works and what amount was each paid per year?


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: In so far as the legal agents of the Minister of Justice are concerned: None.
Economic Policy FINANCE-DEPUTY MINISTERS


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Who were the Deputy Ministers of the Department of Finance between June 25, 1968 and October 10, 1978?


Alan Gray Martin: Name	Date
Mr. R. B. Bryce	July 1, 1963 to March 31, 1970
Mr. S. S. Reisman	April 1, 1970 to March 31, 1975
Mr. T. K. Shoyama	April 1, 1975 to present


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: That this House deplores the double standard applied by the government in deliberately reducing the buying power of Canadian workers and families while allowing an increase in the interest rates which will result in higher revenues for financial institutions, an increase in the inflation rate, as well as a heavier public debt.


Mr. Speaker:: The House should note that proceedings on this motion expire pursuant to Standing Order 58(11).


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to move a motion which will be of great interest, I am sure, to the House and to all hon. members, and which reads as follows:
That this House deplores the double standard applied by the government in deliberately reducing the buying power of Canadian workers and families while allowing an increase in the interest rates which will result in higher revenues for financial institutions, an increase in the inflation rate, as well as a heavier public debt.
Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity not to criticize the government in particular but to denounce once again our vicious and antisocial fiscal system which gives priority to money capital over human capital. That system runs counter to the philosophy of the Social Credit Party of Canada according to which the wealth of Canada should be put at the service of all the people in Canada and not in the hands of a few profiteers who thus central the life of every citizen by ever

December 1, 1978
Economic Policy
widening the gap between the poor and the rich. In a logical system, in a word, money must serve mankind rather than mankind be at the service of money, as we find today. In the face of such an aberration, Mr. Speaker, how could we possibly remain silent and passive? Yet, many others have denounced before us this situation where a few men at the head of large financial monopolies enslave 98 per cent of a working population which is running more and more into debt, poorer and poorer, while this monetary power is getting stronger and stronger.
The government and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) in particular could cry out every day that we must get more into debt, that we must borrow more and more to get richer, they will not convince us, Mr. Speaker, that today debts are beneficial. I do not believe that everybody has become that mad. The one who takes the cake this week is the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien): I heard him challenge personally the Quebec representatives saying they should increase their deficit. Your deficit is not high enough, he said, it should be increased. That is the ultimate in stupidity, Mr. Speaker. Still, there is wisdom in his madness, for he knows that the more one goes into debt, the more of one's freedom is given up to one's creditor; and that is probably how he hopes that some day Quebec will be dependent on the central government, by reducing constantly its obligations towards the provinces while hanging on jealously to its right of taxation. The government keeps on increasing its revenue while stripping the provinces more and more, of their wealth. The government therefore does the same dirty work as the big financial monopolies do with the population.
Some may say that in the last few years we have made progress socially and even economically, Mr. Speaker. As far as we are concerned, there is only a semblance of progress since in fact we are taking away from those who could lead a comfortable life to help the neighbours who have nothing, either because they can no longer work or because they have been robbed, literally, of everything by loan institutions whose rates of interest are exorbitant.
Today the government tries to apply a few of the reforms we have been advocating for 30 years, but by taxing the workers even more, while overlooking big business, monopolies, those who really have the power in this country since the governments are only their lackeys. As I said a few weeks ago, the national budget is paid for by 75 per cent by the workers while the big financial trusts, including the chartered banks, finance barely 25 per cent of it though they rake in the wealth of the country.
If the country's wealth were distributed equitably in Canada, that is if the revenue were distributed fairly among all Canadians instead of going to about a dozen profiteers, we would be able to pay old age pensions, family allowances and the guaranteed annual income to all those who are entitled to them without having to tax the other workers for the money to

pay those benefits since the country makes over $40 billion in additional new production each year.
The Prime Minister tells us, Mr. Speaker, that there are only two ways to run a country: taxes and borrowings. But what about the $40 billion surpluses we have every year and the people's savings? He lets the big financiers take the largest part of the pie, while the government taxes the taxpayers and borrows money.
Let us have a look at the statistics for July. Those who want information need only to examine the statistics for July 1978. As for the amount I referred to earlier of a $40 billion surplus on new production, we find in the statistics an amount of $207.63 billion for the gross national product in Canada, whereas our gross national income, that is our expenses, amounts to only $163,663 billion, that is a $43.4 billion surplus over the country's total spending. Is it not true that with $40 billion we could easily undertake the social reforms proposed by our party, the Social Credit Party of Canada? We cannot under the present system because these $40 billion are monetized by the private banks which siphon everything right out of the financial monopoly, to the detriment of Canadian workers who are responsible for this new production. They are the ones who create these new products, yet only about ten multimillionaires profit from this production, while the people are clamouring, unemployed, and up to their neck in debt.
That is why this crazy system will only lead to one thing, a worsening of the workers' condition, because the more they work the more they increase the financial power of the large monopolies.
This double standard maintained by the government will help large corporations fatten their profits. Someone asked me the other day: But how are we going to stop our debts from increasing? The answer was: The only thing to do in this crazy system is to stop working because the more you produce, the more you get into debt, because you are forced to borrow for your own production. The impact of this attitude is felt not only at the individual level, Mr. Speaker, but also at the family level.
Since 1965, the unevenness of income distribution among Canadian families has been getting worse. This gap is generally said to be due to the very structure of the system. It is true that several behaviour changes in people have increased the number of women in the working place and the number of double income families. The ratio of single people has gone up significantly from 21 per cent in 1965 to 28 per cent in 1975. That of childless couples rose from 21 per cent up to 25 per cent whereas the percentage of families including more than six persons dropped dramatically from 15 per cent down to 7 per cent.
When relating that phenomenon to the gradual deterioration of the purchasing power of Canadian consumers, we can easily
December 1, 1978

understand why people alter their social habits. Also we can presume that women who are not the breadwinner in the family are interested in working because they want to earn an additional income and thus improve the standard of living of the family. Women decide to work not because they are attracted by the labour market as such, especially since it is often pointed out that there is discrimination between men and women as far as income is concerned.
At present, females earn annually an average of $5,884 against $12,611 for males. Thus the difference amounts to $6,727 and this scandalous injustice alone should encourage women to stay at home. Generally speaking and for the reasons I mentioned earlier, it appears that most married women who join the labour force do not do so because they choose to but rather out of necessity. They wish and need to increase the family income which in 1978 was not sufficient to provide for a decent life. That is why we keep on fighting and we will keep on fighting for a salary to the mother who wants to stay home. We must make it possible for her to stay with her family.
Mr. Speaker, I have already given this example in the House before, if we accept to pay generously the members of our armed forces, all their expenses, their uniforms, for the protection of our country, are we going to shrink from the obligation to support those women populating our country, giving life to those service men? That is something I cannot understand when we reject the concept of a mother's salary. If anyone is working for the country, I believe they are. Ironically, while single people are facing increasing financial problems forcing them to change their old way of life, the commercial and financial community is thriving on workers' misfortune. In one year, from 1976 to 1977, while the average family income rose by less than 3 per cent, the real purchasing power of Canadian consumers was considerably reduced by a real drop of approximately 5 per cent.
The Centre for the Study of Inflation and Productivity recently criticized the inability of this government to efficiently control soaring prices while managing on the other hand to efficiently curb salary increases. In fact, this new agency of the Economic Council of Canada blames both the government and the food processing industry for the inflationary situation prevailing in Canada. The profit margin of this industrial sector is 63 per cent per production unit for the first, second, third and fourth quarter of this year. These profits have resulted in an excessive and unwarranted increase of food prices. In their report, those same analysts from the study centre pointed out that such irresponsibility on the part of employers prompted employees of the brewing, packing and processing companies to demand higher wages when bargaining for new collective agreements. Workers consider that their purchasing power has been seriously eroded.
The competitive positions of Canadian businesses on international markets was materially improved by the fall of our
Economic Policy
dollar. We were, of course, in a better position on foreign markets. However, some companies are said to continue raising their prices on products which are now competitive in order to counteract the support prices on foreign products. This petty attitude of the established industry in Canada is not sensible because in spite of temporarily larger profits, its mid-term consequence will be to jeopardize considerably the competitive advantage gained at such a cost, at the expense of consumers. In fact the spiralling inflation which has been created by the industrial selfishness of corporate leaders will inevitably reduce our favourable position on world markets, achieved as it was through unconditional exploitation of small wage earners. The Prime Minister of Canada has even expressed his intention of going back to mandatory wage and price controls should that ever become necessary in the next few months.
But on a short and mid-term basis, the policy of the government will not be changed. It still aims at making the small earner pay for the consistent ineptitude of the government in economic matters. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing new here and this attitude has been demonstrated clearly during the ten years of political domination by the Prime Minister in opposition to the prevailing attitude of industrial and economic circles. The research centre warns the industry against any position likely to affect the national interest. According to them the industry must prove its good faith and show some social conscience by voluntarily reducing its prices on Canadian products. If the present trend continues, we could see a new surge of prices, particularly food prices. This shows a double standard which has been used by the government in the following manner: on the one hand the purchasing power of the workers has been deliberately reduced through a series of social and economic discriminatory measures, including the Anti-Inflation Act which controlled rising salaries, several amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act in a few years, and changes in old age security and family allowances which have been made to reallocate the funds saved on these programs and taken off old people's pensions and family allowances payments to be transferred to industry.
Have we not done enough for big business without providing them with further incentives at the expense of our children and old people? Even in the last budget, the Minister of Finance made several concessions and granted several advantages to big Canadian and foreign entrepreneurs, and that despite the egotistic and at times anti-social behaviour of those same companies towards the average taxpayer. We have reached a point where in the future companies must assume their responsibilities towards Canadians, or least must not hamper the productive efforts of the workers. In order to do so they will have to reduce their profit margin and tighten their belts, in their turn, for the same reasons as salaried Canadians. The report of the Centre for the Study of Inflation and Productivity illustrates perfectly the questionable objectives of big busi-

December 1, 1978
Economic Policy
ness which exploits our resources and our work, and reaps the greater of part of the benefits at our expense. The experience of the last ten years shows full well where the interests of our governments be when they have to choose between guaranteeing the interests of the workers or those of the industry.
Repeatedly, the government has chosen to listen to the recommendations of industry and big business, instead or showing concern for the fears and claims expressed by groups of citizens and consumers. Besides, when it made cuts in the budget last August the government proved clearly that it intends to reduce to a great extent the help it has been granting various consumer groups. The government took away hundreds of millions of dollars from family allowances, depriving thousands of children of their cheques, just as it slashed into unemployment insurance benefits. Why did the government not cut interest rates, which are the primary cause of inflation and the troubles befalling the workers? Double standard always, Mr. Speaker.
Let us now consider the constant increases in interest rates and their impact on the Canadian economy. The 1967 revision of the Bank Act gave rise to several controversies in the House. The Social Credit Party of Canada had necessarily taken part in that important debate which was quite lively. 1 know something about it, as 1 was personally involved. One of the provisions of the bill which had then caught my attention was the removal of the ceiling on interest rates. Such a step, it was suggested, would make chartered banks more competitive with one another and with other financial institutions. Dealing with this matter, I had suggested that the ceiling should be maintained at 6 per cent and if some assistance was to be provided to contractors, small businessmen, consumers and small industrialists, a ceiling on interests was essential. Well, I should add that my suggestion was to no avail. It was overlooked along with many others by the Department of Finance. Today with a rate fluctuating around 11.5 per cent, my suggestion seems more than ever appropriate.
Before proceeding further on the subject of interest rates, let us dwell a little longer on the banking reform. I was not the only one who participated in that debate, even the Minister of Finance did. The minister, who at that time was the parliamentary secretary to the then minister of finance, made a speech on July 6, 1966, in which he said, and 1 quote:
This decennial revision will certainly be welcomed by the newspapers and the public as the most radical measure since the institution of the Bank of Canada about 30 years ago. It will likely increase the confidence of the public in our banking institutions and in any future decisions of the government concerning the monetary policy of our country.
A few moments ago, I heard the Prime Minister say almost the same thing about foreign banks which will come to Canada to compete with our banks. But there never was and never will be any competition in banking; it is a perfect monopoly, and the government makes fun of us saying: competition is good indeed. Oh, come on. The least one can say is that in those days the minister was overly optimistic. He had no doubt

decided to ignore the old saying that no one is a prophet in his own country. The predictions that he made some twelve years ago never came close to come true. After a succession of increases in the interest rate, we may well wonder whether Canadians should trust this government's monetary decisions. As a matter of fact, at the time of that review, I had warned the government in committee that if it removed the ceiling on interest rates, Canada would be faced with its highest rate of inflation ever. Well, we are faced with this inflation rate right now and we will be stuck with it as long as the Canadian dollar keeps floating and there is no ceiling on interest rates.
1 intend therefore to consider briefly the impact on the Canadian economy of these constant increases in the interest rate. We shall see that such a monetary policy is undermining any confidence Canadians may have in their economy and, what is more, is detrimental to our economy. As to the minister's prediction that the Canadian people have more confidence in their banking institutions, other members who will speak after me will deal with it.
I shall deal now with the effect of regular increases in the interest rates. Up until 1967, the interest rates officially charged by chartered banks would not exceed 6 per cent. I say officially, for banks always found a way to charge more. They always came up with unsuspected tricks. But let's not go into it. When later on that ceiling was removed and the over-all bank reform took place, greater competition was to follow as was already mentioned. Moreover, they were intended to avoid further increases in the interest rates and to stimulate banking activities. There was therefore an attempt to strike a balance between banks and other financial institutions. Ten years later we find that we have gone from an extreme to another. From a ceiling rate of 6 per cent which, at the time had apparently a restraining effect on the banks, interest rates today have reached 11 per cent and even 12 per cent in certain banks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[ Translation]


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I also thank my colleagues. I will not take long.


Prosper Boulanger: Take all the time you need.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Somebody on the other side said that there is no hurry. We, on this side, are in no hurry either. While successive increases in the interest rate have allowed the banks to make tremendous profits, their impact has been a totally different nature on the economy. Let us examine step by step the various effects of rising interest rates on our
December 1, 1978

economy. Generally speaking, they have resulted in an economic slowdown. How has it come about?
When the cost of loans climbs, it follows that the cost of investment increases accordingly. In fact all businesses, large and small alike, get their money supply from the banks to support their expansion. Large businesses can choose to borrow at higher rates to meet their financial needs and to pass the cost on to consumers through their products, thus creating an inflationary pressure. As for small and medium businesses, they will probably decide to postpone their expansion plans, thus depriving many persons from jobs that are so vital to our economy and increasing unemployment. The Conference Board in Canada had predicted for the year 1979 a 5 per cent increase in the investment at the level of business and equipment. However, such an increase was dependent upon stationary interest rates. These figures are outdated and hope for economic revival is vanishing.
And what about the housing sector? In the building, office and apartment construction industry the excessively high interest rates makes this kind of investment less attractive to contractors. But for an individual the purchase of a house, because of higher mortgage rates, becomes more often than otherwise a dream. As a result, there is stagnation in that area of the economy. Jobs that could have been created are not. It is worth noting that for the three-month period ending September 30, the number of anticipated housing starts in Canada stood at 217,000 compared with 249,000 last year, and according again to the Conference Board in Canada, an improvement in this area is not about to happen, at least for the moment.
We have been asking for many years that owners of single family homes be given the same justice as owners of apartment buildings. That seems to me easy to understand. An owner who builds houses for rental does not even use his money. His money is lent at 10 per cent or 10.5 per cent and he leaves it there because he would suffer a loss. He borrows the money and he is sure of being able to deduct from his income tax two-thirds of the interest on that borrowed money. Whether he borrows the money at 9 per cent, basically the money is costing him 3 per cent because he can deduct 6 per cent from his income tax. The same thing goes for somebody who builds-yes, it is true, I know something about it because I have built houses. He can write off two-thirds of the interest on his mortgage. He can deduct two-thirds of his municipal taxes, two-thirds of his school taxes. He can deduct the maintenance of that house. He can deduct the depreciation, 10 per cent or 15 per cent, on that same house.


An hon. Member:: Ten per cent.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: I am told a 10 per cent depreciation every year. But that is fantastic. I made inquiries. 1 know people who build projects worth millions of dollars since they
Economic Policy
do not have to use a single cent of their money-they are right. Taxes pay all the expenses of their houses. They only have to collect the rents. You do not have to be a millionaire to build a one million dollar apartment building today, you have to be a financier. They call them financiers. I am not against the advantages they get-no, we need them-but 1 want the head of a family to get the same advantages for his single family home. It has been suggested that the owner of multiple unit dwellings builds for other people. I would like to tell something to the House. The head of the household also builds for others. He builds for his wife, he builds for his children, and he must therefore be entitled to the same deductions; he must be entitled to deduct the interest on his mortgage on his income tax return.
Recently I heard a member of the Progressive Conservative party talk about this, and I was pleased to hear him because it means that a party will finally take a position on this issue. The Liberal party has never done so. For the last 20 years, we have been asking for justice for the owners of single-unit dwellings so that the head of the household can be entitled to deduct the interest on his mortgage, as well as municipal taxes, school taxes, maintenance and devaluation. It is very simple. This is quite fair. What we ask is not so fantastic; simply that the head of the household be treated the same way as the financier who had the money to build large rental projects. It is very simple, but the strong have always been favoured while the weak have been left to fend for themselves. If they cannot pay their taxes, their house will be sold to make up the money of their taxes. Let us look at what happens. A big developer builds rental housing and the government endorses him so that the loan company will not lose one cent. The government stays behind him and says: Go ahead and lend money, we will protect you. The government would never do this for the head of a household. This is why our laws are anti-social.
When we start looking at our statutes, as I have already said in this House, we can see that 75 per cent of them are anti-social, and I can prove this any time. Everything we do is based on financial resources, but there is never any mention about what should be our main consideration, that is human resources. However, the main objective of the Social Credit party of Canada is to see human resources triumph over financial resources. As long as we cannot do this, Mr. Speaker, we cannot tell ourselves that we have a healthy economy or that there is peace in Canada*and that Canadians are happy. You could say that today everyone is committed to finance and has to produce for the benefit of finance. If someone is not useful to financial interest, he is left behind.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe that in this area as in all others, there is need for reform, and I hope that the government, that is the Liberal party, will include in its next electoral program what the Progressive Conservatives have already started to introduce in their policy, even though they have not gone far enough yet.

December 1, 1978
Economic Policy


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Speaker, the motion placed before the House today by the Social Credit party refers to interest rates, inflation, and the burden of the public debt of Canada. I would like to deal in the opening part of my remarks with the subject of the net public debt.
Critics of the government, in fact of any government, are always quick to criticize the size of the public debt and the annual charges arising from that debt as an example, in their minds usually, of poor financial management. It is important to keep the extent of the public debt in its proper perspective.
If we look at net debt, which is arrived at by deducting from gross public debt the return on the interest component of government revenues, the amount in our case is in the area of $40 billion.
Taken as a percentage of gross national expenditure, commonly referred to as g.n.e., the net debt works out to about
19.3	per cent. It is interesting to note that in 1962, and I hope members opposite are listening, when we last had a Conservative government, Canada's net debt was equal at the time to
33.4	per cent of g.n.e. As I mentioned, the figure today under a Liberal administration is 19.3 per cent.
The percentage of g.n.e. required to meet public debt charges this year is estimated at 1.3, the same level as in 1962. The figures also show that public debt on both the net and gross basis has escalated sharply in the last four years. This has been the result, in substantial part, of the economy operating at below average levels of activity, something that has been an international phenomenon. The government has been compelled to incur larger deficits to offset in part this slowdown.
Moving next to the subject of inflation, there is, quite understandably, continuing concern in Canada and in other industrialized countries of the world about inflation. It is clear that, no matter what kind of figures are used, Canada has had striking success in turning the inflationary trend around during these past few years.
In his budget speech two weeks ago, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) said that he expects the consumer price index next year will average 6'/2 per cent above the level of this year, and that year over year increases between the current fourth quarter and the fourth quarter of 1979 will indeed be under 6 per cent. That was highly encouraging news for our Canadian economy.

It is worth while reviewing the factors that have contributed most significantly to Canada's most recent high rates of inflation. In the long run, inflation is primarily a monetary phenomenon. Increases in the rate of growth in the money supply will eventually lead to corresponding increases in the rate of inflation. In the short and medium term, however, increases in the money supply do not translate into proportional increases in the rate of inflation. Nor do decreases in the money supply necessarily imply proportional reductions in the rate of inflation. Because of this, trade-offs between inflation and unemployment will exist in both the short and medium terms.
The short-term relationship between the unemployment rate and changes in wages depends fundamentally on the flexibility of real and money wages. There appears to be a fairly high degree of inflexibility of wage change to changes in unemployment.
For many goods and services labour costs make up the largest part of total production costs and are the primary determinate of prices. Even in these cases, however, the relationship between labour costs and prices may be unstable and may change in response to other factors. There are, as well, many markets in which prices may be determined independently of wage behaviour. For example, in the case of agricultural products, demand factors and supply constraints may be more important than wage costs in determining ultimate prices. Government charges are also not closely related to underlying labour costs. Increases in the prices of internationally traded commodities or changes in the exchange rate can also lead directly to higher rates of inflation. Price increases stemming from these sources contributed significantly to the higher inflation rates of the 1970s. It is thus possible to have rising rates of inflation for a period of time despite a deceleration in wage increases.
The response of the rate of wage change to changes in the unemployment rate will depend not only on the degree of wage flexibility but also on the speed of adjustment of inflationary expectations to changes in the rate of inflation. It is not possible to state precisely how price expectations are formed. There seems little doubt, however, that they are influenced by past price behaviour. Further, inflation expectations may be influenced by government policy initiatives. In other words, if individuals believe government policies will reduce price increases, they may act as if the rate of inflation were going to fall.
In the period up to 1973 there were a number of domestic factors working toward worsening inflation. These included strong aggregate demand growth, which was partly the result of strongly expansive aggregate demand policies, increasing inflationary expectations, and rising public sector wages. Important changes were also occurring in the labour market. The increasing participation rates of women and youth, the growth in multi-earner families, and the 1971 Unemployment Insurance Act revisions raised the level of the unemployment
December 1, 1978

rate at which inflationary pressures were likely to emerge. These factors combined to generate a momentum leading to inflation rates in the 3 per cent to 5 per cent range. In the absence of the external price shocks of 1973 to 1975, however, the inflation rate would not likely have reached double-digit levels, and most likely could have been contained by less expansive aggregate demand policies.
The major increases in food and energy prices which occurred after 1972 had an immediate and direct impact on the rate of inflation. This led subsequently to higher wage and salary demands, partly because of attempts to maintain real wages and salaries and partly because of expectations of future high rates of inflation. The result was a secondary wage-price spiral and further support for the inflation momentum.
The rate of change of wages and salaries has been declining steadily since 1975, partly because of the anti-inflation program and partly because of high levels of unemployment. Consequently the rate of increase of prices of goods for which domestic wage costs comprise the most important part of total costs has been declining, and significant gains have been made toward restoring Canada's international competitive position.
Figures indicating our position internationally have been put on the record here in this current session on a number of occasions to show that in terms of the seven major countries with which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and the financial critic of the official opposition were comparing us, we were indeed in first and second place by many important economic indicators. We were not in seventh or eighth place where those hon. members were attempting to place us. In this regard it is very important that those price increases in 1978 which were essentially temporary in nature not be built into Canada's cost structure through fully offsetting wage and salary settlements.
1 would like to move on to the subject of interest rates. An attempt to achieve a short-run reduction in interest rates through highly expansionary monetary policy would likely be of limited effectiveness in the short run and self-defeating in the long run. This is especially true given the importance of international flows of capital into the Canadian market.
It is questionable how far Canadian interest rates could be made to diverge from international tendencies in the short run. In the longer run, as higher money supply growth is reflected in high inflation, the outlook would be for still higher interest rates. We would generally accept the view that the high interest rates are primarily an effect rather than a cause of inflation.
The root of the troubles that the Canadian economy has been experiencing in recent years can be traced back to the problem of inflation, and in particular to the period of intense inflation Canada suffered in the early 1970s. Inflation in Canada peaked in 1975 with prices and wages rising very high in absolute terms, but also rising in a significant way above wages and prices in the United States which was then, and remains today, our main trading partner. This led to a serious impairment of our international competitive position, a large deficit in the current account of the balance of payments and a
Economic Policy
falling off of foreign capital inflows into direct investment in Canada. Such developments inevitably led in turn to a large downward adjustment in the external value of the Canadian dollar.
Canadians have worked hard to extricate themselves from the grip of inflation, but at the same time we want to maintain a moderate rate of growth in the economy. There is no easy way to achieve this. It can only be done over a long period.
We must also focus on monetary policy, which is playing an important role in slowing inflation in Canada. The Bank of Canada for the past three years has been operating within publicly announced guidelines of declining targets for monetary growth. There have been three successive downward revisions in the bank's target range to a current level of 6 per cent to 10 per cent a year. This policy has been acclaimed as what is needed for ensuring a continual gradual reduction in our rate of inflation.
As we are now very close to ending the decontrol period, it is important to set rigid monetary growth rates. In the event that the inflation rate should not decline, monetary policy will come into play to dampen any renewed acceleration of inflation. In such circumstances there is no alternative but to set interest rates high enough to prevent undue monetary expansion, which in turn could only feed still higher rates of inflation. Of course higher rates of inflation cancel out the benefits of the recent exchange rate adjustment on the Canadian dollar and our improved competitive position which is providing fresh stimulus to economic activity in Canada.
The major objectives of our monetary policy are clear and, indeed, impose a financial discipline on the economy and on all Canadians.
On the subject of monetary policy and interest rates I would like to draw attention to a recent speech given in Vancouver by the governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Gerald Bouey. Some of the observations he made in that speech were included in an excellent presentation made by the governor early last month in testimony before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
In my remarks today I would like to include one or two excerpts from the speech of governor Bouey because I think it is important, as we discuss an opposition motion such as the one put forward today and as we react to the kinds of comments that are being directed to us and to the Canadian public by the Leader of the Opposition and by his chief financial critic, that we place on the record, whenever there is an opportunity, the positive kind of news that is coming over and over again, not only from Canadians but from international figures of repute.
One of the things that has been of particular interest to me in the month or two that I have been Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, has been attending sessions at which international bankers and industrialists who have come to Canada for those meetings are praising us for the kinds of policies we have been implementing to cope with the problems

December 1, 1978
Economic Policy
with which we have been faced in recent years. I think that kind of news does not get out of this chamber unless we on this side say it. It will certainly not be said by hon. members opposite who are attempting to convince the Canadian public of the philosophy of gloom and doom which they think might help them and might have been of some small assistance to them in the few by-elections conducted in this country a month or two ago. They feel that kind of thing will be bought by the Canadian public at a major general election. This is indeed not the case.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alan Gray Martin: I would like to come back to my earlier point and read into the record some of the comments made by governor Bouey in his speech earlier this month, made in Vancouver to the Men's Canadian Club of Vancouver. He said in part, the following:
Monetary policy has had an important role to play in the slowing of inflation in Canada. For more than three years the bank has been operating within a framework of publicly announced and gradually declining targets for monetary growth. These targets specify the upper and lower limits of a range within which the bank will endeavour to keep the trend rate of increase of the money supply. The bank's initial target range for monetary growth back in 1975 was from 10 per cent a year to something less than 15 per cent a year. As monetary growth and inflation have slowed over the intervening period, there have been three successive downward successions of the bank's target range to its current level of 6 to 10 per cent a year. The bank had made it clear on numerous occasions that further gradual reductions in its monetary growth targets will be required over future years if monetary policy is to be consistent with the longer-run objective of ensuring a continuing gradual decline in Canada's rate of inflation.
He went on to say:
In setting its targets the bank's objective is to choose a range for the near-term growth of the money supply capable of accommodating a reasonable rate of economic expansion provided that this is accompanied by some continuing decline in the rate of inflation. The fact that we have been successful in meeting our targets for three consecutive years now provides, I hope, convincing evidence that we are serious about them. If as we come out of the decontrol period the rate of inflation should not decline, or worse still, if there should be a renewed acceleration of the rate of increase of wages and prices, the bank will not for that reason allow its monetary growth targets to be exceeded. In such circumstances interest rates would have to be high enough to prevent undue monetary expansion, and that in turn could lead to slower economic growth until inflation subsided again. That risk cannot be avoided unless monetary policy is simply to underwrite whatever rate of inflation turns up. Given more responsible wage and price behaviour, of course, economic growth need not suffer in this way. Indeed, if we do not let inflation cancel out the benefits of the recent exchange rate adjustment, our improved competitive position will itself provide fresh stimulus to economic activity in Canada.
Because of the importance of this major speech by the governor of the Bank of Canada, I would like to quote a little further from some of his comments. Later in his speech he went on to say:
The downward adjustment of the Canadian dollar from November 1976 to the early part of this year was reasonably orderly and was not a cause for particular concern. At the beginning of this year it seemed to me that Canada's underlying balance of payments situation was better than it had been for some time. A large downward adjustment in the Canadian dollar had taken place about as smoothly as could be expected, and this had much improved our competitive position in international trade.
Again we hear over and over again about the benefits that are accruing to the Canadian economy and to industry generally as a result of a lower exchange dollar. I go on to quote Governor Bouey's comments as follows:
Our costs of production were no longer rising significantly faster than those of our main trading partner, as rates of increase in money wages had come back down to about the same range as in the United States. The expenditures of governments in this country had slowed considerably and the money supply was under good control.
I might say that the federal government had been very much in the lead in this current endeavour to control expenditures under its management.
Governor Bouey went on to say:
The merchandise trade surplus was increasing and prospects for a decline in our over-all current account deficit seemed reasonably good. Although rising U.S. interest rates in conjunction with a lowering of Canadian rates had reduced the incentive to borrow abroad and there had been a lull at times in the pace of foreign borrowings by provinces and corporations, it looked as though these forms of net capital inflow would come close to financing the current account deficit.
I could go on to quote a number of sections of this speech that I think are pertinent, but perhaps I may just conclude these remarks by quoting an additional excerpt from governor Bouey's speech. Again I emphasize that it is extremely important at this time that Canadians understand the positive features of our economy, and that we on this side of the House do all we can to place on the record here, in our ridings and wherever possible, the fact that Canada's position, particularly as compared to other western industrialized nations, is second to none.
I will quote an additional section from Governor Bouey's speech wherein he says:
I have heard a certain amount of unhappiness expressed because of a feeling that our interest rates are tied to those of the United States. My reply to this is that to the extent they are so tied it is at our own choice. After all, we have had the choice of not following U.S. rates up and thus allowing the Canadian dollar to fall faster and further, with the risks that I have just referred to. We always have the choice of ignoring movements in U.S. interest rates if we think we can live with the consequences; in some circumstances it may be wise to do so, but in others it is not. In a situation where we are heavily dependent on inflows of foreign capital and when confidence in the Canadian dollar is still rather fragile in foreign exchange markets, opportunities to be able to ignore movements in U.S. interest rates are likely to be limited.
I would like to conclude my comments today by referring once again to the motion put forward by the Social Credit party, and to say that when we talk about the average Canadian and his situation ten or 15 years ago, or during the period of Conservative government-which seems to have been so many years ago that people have forgotten all about it-in some instances we find the situation much improved. When I go to my constituency in Scarborough on a Friday evening, as I will be doing tonight, I find it is not easy to get into a restaurant for a meal because of the large line-ups of people waiting to go in, often with their families.
The fact is that many Canadians today, the majority of them, are enjoying a standard of living that is substantially better than the standard which was in existence prior to the time that this government came to power. We realize and understand that indeed there are continuing pockets of serious

December 1, 1978

unemployment across the country. In my remarks today I have made that clear, as I have done on many occasions. The government is doing all it can with its measures and leadership to come to grips with those pockets of unemployment. The recent budget addressed itself to regional disparities by providing increased incentives for companies to establish and invest in areas where unemployment is the highest, and by providing tax credits of up to 20 per cent for investment in those particular areas.
We are hearing more and more irresponsible policies from members of the official opposition, such as two or three platform positions recently taken in terms of providing tax reductions. They would add a conservative estimate of $5 billion to $6 billion in total to the deficit. We on this side know that a substantial deficit exists at the present time. We are attempting to come to grips with it, but members on the other side would see it enlarged if they had their way. Yet the financial critic, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), has the nerve to rise and continually criticize the government for not doing more to bring that deficit down. He knows full well that the hon. Leader of the Opposition and other Conservative members are travelling across the country recommending the immediate implementation of policies, if they were to become the government in power. Those policies would increase the deficit by as much as 50 per cent. They cannot have it both ways. Canadians will never accept the completely opposite positions they are taking: one day they say one thing, and the next day they say another.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to take this opportunity to discuss with the House a couple of matters of particular concern raised by the motion of the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier). The first issue is the question of interest rates. 1 have debated this matter with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Martin) on the late show, and I am glad to have an opportunity to follow him and deal with some of these important questions today.
Often my party is accused of living in the 1930s. Often it has been said that my party looks to the past too much, is too concerned with welfare, is preoccupied with the problems of unemployment and how bad things are, and is not sufficiently optimistic or aware of the fact that we are living in an affluent society. These are misconceptions. The parties which seem to be living in the 1930s are the Conservatives and the Liberals.
The parliamentary secretary indicated this afternoon that because so many restaurants in Toronto were full, we were living in a time of unprecedented affluence. The existence of a bread line, instead of a waiting line for a restaurant, does not demonstrate economic hard times. A great many people in major cities are unemployed, not simply a few pockets of the population. These people are facing extreme financial difficulties, and I should like to refer to two aspects of these difficulties this afternoon.
Economic Policy
The first matter is the question of the interest rate, and related to that is the question of the housing situation. Housing is an important aspect of our cost of living and is a fundamental part of the financial obligations which Canadians have. At the present time the prime rate is 10.75 per cent, and there is a spread of 1.8 per cent between the prime rate charged by the Bank of Canada and the rate charged by banks. The government has engaged in a policy of high interest rates. The parliamentary secretary quoted the words of the governor of the Bank of Canada, that it is a matter of choice. Thus, we can only assume that the government has chosen to go that route, or the government has been forced to go that route, because it is determined to keep the dollar at 85 cents, regardless of the cost in terms of interest rates.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bob Rae: It is true. In the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, the Governor of the Bank of Canada made it perfectly clear that the government and the bank are not prepared to see the dollar go below 85 cents. That is why the interest rate has been kept at its present rate and will continue to rise in response to developments in the United States. At that time the governor created a spectre by referring to the horrors of the dollar going below 85 cents American. Also he said that we had succumbed to something terrible, the British disease. As I understand it from listening to the governor, the British disease is that we would depreciate our currency and import inflation, thereby setting off a spiral of wage demands and so on, which would exceed what we are experiencing at the present time.
It is a very old debating trick, not unknown to some lawyers, to parade a spectre of horrors before a jury so that it will come up with another alternative. In accepting the reality of that spectre-it is a spectre; it is not a reality-the government and the governor of the Bank of Canada succumbed to a disease which is much worse than a potential and unreal fantasy alternative, the Canadian disease. They have succumbed to the Canadian disease. The interst rate is at 10.75 per cent, and there are tens of thousands of houses on the markets of major cities which cannot be bought because people cannot afford them, and there is no market.
The United States has a different and lower unemployment rate of between 5 per cent and 6 per cent. Its industrial capacity is different at the present time, as well as its history respecting the economic problems which that country faces. The United States has increased its interest rate in response to internal developments. We have simply followed along in lock step with the economy of the United States in adopting a high interest rate policy. The government appears to be carrying out a financial policy, but if one looks at its internal implications they are dramatic, social and economic implications for Canadian consumers.
The high interest rate policy also provides for windfall profits for banks. Let there be no illusions about that. I addressed questions to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) today concerning the figures published yesterday which
1716

December 1, 1978
Economic Policy
revealed that bank profits were approaching $1 billion and had risen 33 per cent from last year. The president of one of the major banks said that the main reason for increased profits is that the margin between the prime rate and the rate charged by banks has been increased, and that spread accounts for a large portion of the increased profits. That spread is at the expense of the ordinary person, the one who wants to borrow money or buy a house. The banks are taking advantage of those people.
If I may say, with respect to my friend, you do not have to be a Social Crediter to recognize that our large financial institutions are taking terrible advantage of our people. The amendments to the Bank Act which the government has proposed do not deal with that problem. They do not even address the problem.


An hon. Member:: Be specific.


Bob Rae: An hon. member has asked me to be specific. All right, I will be quite specific. Let us accept the government's position that for external economic reasons, financial reasons, or for reasons of protecting the currency, we need an interest rate that is locked into the interest rates of the United States so that if American rates go up ours goes up. Let us accept that for the purposes of argument. If that is the case, it is the responsibility of the government to address itself to legislation in respect of banks which does two things: legislation which guarantees that banks will not make excess profits as a result of the fact that interest rates fluctuate and go up; and, second, that banks set aside a portion of their profits to be used to create what I would call subsidized interest rates for specific purposes. In other words, we should have legislation which provides for lower mortgage rates for first-time home buyers, to be subsidized by excess profits from the banks.
Alternatively, the legislation should address itself to another economic necessity relating to the concerns of small businessmen, particularly those in the Atlantic provinces, or even in downtown Toronto. Those concerns relate to their credit needs which cannot be met or cannot be satisfied if the government persists in following a policy of high interest rates because of external requirements.
That is the Canadian disease and the Canadian dilemma. We have high interest rates allegedly because of external constraints which have an impact on the internal economy, what I call the social economy of the country, which is quite out of line with requirements or external demands.
The classic example, as I said today, is that bank profits, which some people are able to take advantage of through high interest rates, are not available to the working people of Canada, but rather to the people who own shares in banks and who work in the banks. The Bank Act does not address itself to this problem. The Minister of Finance said he hoped we would propose amendments to the Bank Act, and I can assure him that we will.
I hope the government will address itself to that aspect of the interest problem. As the interest rate goes up because of external demands, there is a dramatic effect on the internal market, but there is no direct, intelligent or sensible relationship between those two things.
The second thing I want to deal with in the few minutes left to me is the matter of housing, particularly housing in our large urban centres. I represent a riding in downtown Toronto, so obviously I am speaking from that perspective.


An hon. Member:: A rotten place.


Bob Rae: It is not a rotten place. It is a very nice place and I invite you to come there.


An hon. Member:: Population-wise.


Bob Rae: The fact of the matter is, according to the government's own statistics, that about one-fifth of all metropolitan householders pay more than 25 per cent of their income on shelter, and, of those, about 180,000 pay more than 40 per cent of their income to secure and maintain their dwellings.
The important point to remember out of this is that renters have an even greater affordability problem than do the owners of houses. When the time comes for the next election and for the people of Canada to take a very hard look at the scheme which has been proposed by the Conservative party, I am sure they will recognize not only that it will not solve the financial problems of the Canadian people in regard to the size of our deficit, but that it is a fundamentally inequitable proposal from the point of view of our taxation system, and from the point of view of social justice.
It is important to remember that every time we give somebody a tax credit, somebody else is paying for it, and it is important to remember that the vast majority of the revenues of Canada come from the working people of Canada. It is the guy or the woman who is paying income tax every week and sees it knocked off the wage cheque who knows that this will be used to subsidize this scheme of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.


An hon. Member:: They would like to own homes too.


Bob Rae: They would like to own homes, but we are also looking at a system which does not provide for their ability to own a home, but rather provides a subsidy to the people who own homes at the present time. You cannot sacrifice these wages for some future dream five years away. You are selling the people a Hollywood fantasy which is not going to work.
The reality of the fact is that there are a great many people living in our urban centres who are apartment dwellers and renters, and who will be renters and apartment dwellers until the day they die.


An hon. Member:: We will look after them too.


Bob Rae: I am sure you will when your time comes, but until that time comes we have to address ourselves to the inequities
[Mr. Rae.)
December 1, 1978

of the tax system and to the inactivity of the government in respect of the housing problem. I think the degree of concern this government has accepted in respect of housing has been demonstrated by two recent events. First of all, this government chopped $260 million from the CMHC budget and, secondly, it is abolishing the ministry of urban affairs. We know full well that when the urban dweller in Canada wants to look to a government for the solution to his problems he will not be looking to the government in Ottawa, and I suggest that is a very sad day for the people of Canada. When the day comes that the Government of Canada says, "Don't come to us with your problems, go back to the provinces from which you came," that is the day we no longer have a country of which we can really be proud.
It is an abdication of political and social responsibility for this government to say that problems of urban dwellers are no longer to be a major preoccupation of this government. This government had the opportunity in 1971 to set up a ministry of urban affairs which would genuinely co-ordinate government policy in respect of our cities. This government has not fulfilled one aspect of that policy in respect of urban planning, urban growth, and urban transportation. The government's answer now is to abolish the ministry of state for urban affairs. The hon. member is supposed to agree with me, but he will not. That is why this government has bought the entire Tory package of restraint, the effect of which has been to reduce the total amount spent by this government on social measures, and reduce the ability of the government to provide for the housing needs of urban Canadians.
In the few minutes left to me I simply want to say that if this government thinks that by stumbling from pillar to post in response to what it sees as the vagaries of public opinion, and that by reducing the level of socioeconomic spending on its part, it will endear itself to the working men and women of Canada, it is in for a shock at the next election, and certainly it should be in for a shock. The fact of the matter is that the level of social spending by this government in terms of housing, in terms of urban transportation, and in terms of the needs of our inter-city Canadians dictates the level of the standard of living of those people. Those are not people who can rely entirely on the market for their standard of living.
In a civilized and decent society we should not have private wealth and public squalor. What we must have is wealth distributed throughout our society, providing a satisfactory living in respect of housing and transportation. We must have public investment that guarantees a satisfactory standard of living for all Canadians. That is why the matter of the interest rates is directly tied to the question of the standard of living, and I am glad that our friend has brought it up. As long as you have a government which relies entirely on a private market and a standard of high interest rates for the provision of its housing, there will be a housing market that will be unfulfilled and depleted in the inner cities of this country. We know that there are not only affordability needs but physical needs in housing that are not being met by this government.
Economic Policy
The abolishment of the ministry of urban affairs-and I see that we have a former minister of state for urban affairs in the House-is typical of the lack of concern that this government has shown for the housing situation in Canada.


Mr. Rob Parker (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of items in this motion that have already been discussed by previous speakers, such as interest rates, inflation, fiscal and monetary policy, and so on. I intend to make reference to those subjects during my remarks, but there is a phrase in the motion to which reference has not been made. The phrase is "double standard" and I can understand the government not mentioning it because it reads, "this House deplores the double standard applied by the government. ..".
The parliamentary secretary gave some indication of that double standard when he talked about the striking success this government has had. 1 am sure a great many Canadians must view that statement as something of a double standard. He talked about how good things were for Canadians. Those who are out of work must regard that as something of a double standard. He referred to pockets of unemployment. I suppose that next the government will be telling us that there is no unemployment, that it is just a nasty rumour started by a lot of people who are out of work.
The parliamentary secretary also referred to the size of the government debt in relation to gross national expenditures. He seemed to draw enormous satisfaction from the fact that the debt was a higher percentage of g.n.e. during the last year of the last Conservative government than it is at the present time. That is a double standard, because if government g.n.e. doubled tomorrow he would then boast to us that the government managed to reduce the debt, when it is clear that one is simply expressed as a percentage of the other.
He also said that the opposition party has been attempting to convince Canadians of doom and gloom and how terrible things are in the country. We do not have to convince the Canadian people of anything. The results of the October 16 by-elections, when I and a number of my colleagues on this side had the honour to be elected, indicate that they already understand what things are like in this country. We are simply pointing out what a disastrous job this government has done managing the affairs of the country over the years it has been in office. If we preach doom and gloom we preach it to the government, and only in the sense that if its policies continue then we face disaster. We put sensible policy alternatives before the government, many of which it adopts, but as I pointed out before, it gets the words right and the music wrong. Ministers opposite did it in 1974 with wage and price controls, and they are likely to do it again with some of the things that are in the current budget.
It must also be a double standard to Canadians when this government talks about restraint. 1 believe the phrase the parliamentary secretary used was "leadership in restraint." 1 am sure that those same Canadians have noted that during the entire period of wage and price controls when wages, profits
80067-37'/2

December 1, 1978
Economic Policy
and prices were restricted, the spending increases of this government never fell below 10 per cent, never got down into the single digit figures, and soared as high as 16 per cent. That is a double standard of major proportions.
For the last three months this government has been talking about spending cutbacks and what a wonderful job it is doing in that area. Yet, even if you believe that the restraints it predicted for next year are actually going to take place-and based on the record of this government it is very difficult to believe anything it says-it will still have a 9 per cent spending increase next year. It will be the largest dollar spending increase it has had since 1974. And that is supposed to be some form of restraint? There are so many examples of double standards, playing with the figures, and misrepresentation on the part of this government that they are difficult to deal with adequately in the time we have today.
1 would now like to comment on a document that appeared before this House in concert with the budget. It is a report on a study by the Department of Finance of the tax systems of Canada and the United States. The government in printing that study did not go into great detail about what precisely it was purporting to prove. The message seemed to be that things were pretty good here because this study purports to show conclusively, according to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), that the Canadian personal tax system compares favourably with the United States and, therefore, we are doing all right. I suppose we are to believe that the people of the United States are doing all right too, which is not the case.
This study does not show that the conclusion by the Minister of Finance is correct at all. For example, he says that "our business taxes are fully competitive." That is a highly arguable point and I intend to argue it later. The study itself is so highly qualified that it does not provide the conclusive demonstration he suggests. It notes five difficulties with the comparability of data, and two difficulties with the interpretation of tax burden, and it consistently confuses the differences between the tax burden and the tax rate. Finally, it concludes that the Canadian and U.S. tax systems are competitive but only in a general way. It makes no attempt to provide a conclusive demonstration.
Several of the conclusions in this study are misleading, particularly when they are used to claim that the Canadian tax system is competitive. 1 would like to point out five or six specific examples of the kinds of misleading information contained in it. For example, on page 57 of the study the second paragraph reads:
The paper leads to the general conclusion that the Canadian tax system compares favourably with that in the U.S. In aggregate, while tax revenues of all levels of government were 1.8 percentage points of GDP higher in Canada than in the U.S. in 1977, Canadians had the benefit of publicly provided health care services and demogrant transfer payments in the form of family allowances and old age security pensions.
There are two points here. In the first place, the study clearly concedes that the aggregate tax burden as a proportion of the total economic activity is higher in Canada than in the United States. That concession alone is enough to make the findings of this study less than conclusive.

Secondly, it argues that if you exclude the cost of certain services provided by the government without cost-health care, family allowances, etc.-then the Canadian tax burden is lower. That argument is ridiculous. It does not hold water because the study deals with the tax burdens of the two countries, which is conceptually different from the study of the services provided by the two governments. Also, if one subtracts the cost of social services provided by the government, why should you not subtract other services? For example, why do they not include the higher spending on defence in the United States, which is a much greater portion of their national budget, in the comparison?
The common theme of the two reasons for disputing the study's argument is that the issue is tax burden and not spending habits. No one doubts that U.S. government agencies spent tax dollars on different items than Canadian government agencies. Surely the issue is the tax burden that is required to finance those activities, not what the activities are. That is part of a different argument that takes place in this chamber also, but at a different time.
Another item in this study concludes that non-income taxes form the same proportion of total revenues in both countries. In the United States there is greater emphasis on social security taxes than in Canada, and Canadian non-income taxes have their primary impact through indirect taxation, specifically the manufacturers' sales tax. The study maintains that this tax has little effect on international competitiveness as these taxes apply only to goods produced or imported and not to exports. It is probably true that it has little effect on international competitiveness but it is also a fair conclusion, although it is not mentioned in the study, that United States social security taxes probably have little effect on international competitiveness either.
On page 57, the study notes:
(iii) Aggregate personal taxes (personal income taxes, social security taxes levied on persons and estate and gift taxes) are lower in Canada, as a percentage of personal income, than in the U.S.
On the next page it states-and this is the important part- as follows:
In Canada, personal income taxes are a higher percentage of personal income than in the U.S. but this is more than offset by lower levels of social security and estate and gift taxes.
Even if we assume that these facts are correct, although there are a number of reasons to question the study, not only for the conclusions which seem to be used for political purposes, but in the way-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Rob Parker: We only use facts and figures for statesmanship on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: You should listen to some of your colleagues.
December 1, 1978


Rob Parker: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the hon. gentleman opposite realizes, we are not responsible for members of the New Democratic Party or for members of the Social Credit party.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Rob Parker: Even if we assume that these facts are correct, what is of interest is that Canadian unemployment insurance contributions are treated as a tax in this study. According to this document, the Department of Finance considers UIC contributions to be a tax. Surely, then, the government should cease referring to them as insurance premiums, as they do consistently. There is quite a difference between tax and insurance.
Another point in the study is that total exemptions and deductions are higher in Canada than in the United States. That may be true but it is irrelevant. The study has already conceded that personal income taxes are a higher percentage of personal income in Canada than in the United States. That being true, exemptions and deductions should also be higher.
On page 58 the study makes comparisons of disposable incomes as follows:
(v) Comparisons of disposable incomes (gross income plus family allowances where applicable, less income tax and employee social security contributions) of typical taxpayers in Canada and the U.S., indicate that most lower and middle-income taxpayers in Canada have higher disposable incomes than their American counterparts.
That is an extremely misleading statement for at least four reasons, Mr. Speaker. First of all, it includes family allowances. While family allowances are fairly included in disposable income, the spending of the government should not enter into calculations of the tax burden of the government. To do so creates a distortion which would allow industrial subsidies to be deducted from the tax burden of industry.
Second, the comparison deals with disposable incomes, not real disposable incomes. Several of the comparisons in the study deal with the period from 1972 to 1977. Over that period, while consumer prices in the United States increased by 44.9 per cent, in Canada consumer prices increased by 53.4 per cent. The 1972 United States consumer dollar was worth 69 cents in 1977, while the Canadian consumer dollar was worth 65 cents. A comparison of real disposable incomes might therefore tell quite a different story.
Third, unless the comparison is made over the period of a business cycle, it will be misleading. This government has been very cute over the last several months in carefully picking periods when restraint or accomplishment on economic fronts or on government spending fronts seems to have been present, but in fact has not been present in many of those cases, and certainly not over a full business cycle.
Fourth, the fact that Canadian incomes are higher should come as no surprise to anyone, especially the government. The parliamentary secretary referred to this already this afternoon. It was the imbalance in incomes and wage rates that led this government to impose wage and price controls in the first place. That is a suggestion that was made by this party and
Economic Policy
rejected categorically by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the 1974 election campaign, when he said, "We will never ... etc."
That same imbalance in wage rates led to the devaluation of our dollar. The government is speaking out of both sides of its mouth. Out of the one side they claim that because Canadian disposable incomes are higher than those in the United states, there is no problem with our tax system and everything is dandy. Out of the other side they claim that because Canadian disposable incomes are higher than those in the United States, there is a need for wage and price controls and a devalued dollar. Wage and price controls fortunately are coming to an end, but until this government comes to an end there is no end in sight for the devalued dollar. They cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker.
On page 59, in paragraph (vii), the study states:
-the over-all effective corporation tax rate in Canada was some six percentage points lower than the U.S.
That is nothing new but you cannot fairly proceed from that to conclude that the over-all corporate tax burden is lighter. What the comparison leaves out primarily is the federal manufacturers' sales tax payable in Canada which has been reduced in the last budget by 3 per cent. It still exists, however, and it has a major effect on economic activity.
The economic theory of pricing suggests that all taxes-not only direct corporate income tax but indirect taxes and sales taxes paid by business-have to be reflected and are reflected in the price of the product. The product is priced to provide an after tax return on investment. If that applies, then both income tax and sales tax enter into price calculations. That is one reason that automobile prices, for example, are higher in Canada than in the United States despite the auto pact. Canadians pay a federal sales tax indirectly that United States residents do not. While the federal sales tax does not affect export competitiveness, it does affect domestic prices and thereby affects corporate income. In assessing comparative corporate tax burdens as this does, it must be included. Statements about the corporate tax rate completely ignore this.
Mr. Speaker, this is but one study that compares the tax systems of Canada and the United States. 1 have already indicated that 1 think its timing is suspicious, its conclusions dubious and its logic arguable. I should therefore like to quote from some other studies, particularly one done in 1976 by the private sector. It was prepared by the senior tax partner of Price Waterhouse and Company for a conference sponsored by the The Conference Board in Canada. As everyone in this House knows, this is a very effective, very professional, highly proficient and certainly unbiased organization. The senior tax partner of that firm said in the first paragraph of this study:
Making any sort of comparison of tax burdens between countries is a very complicated matter. By an appropriate choice of figures, it is possible to arrive at virtually any answer that you might desire. It is therefore possible to draw only very general conclusions from most international tax comparisons: in one set of circumstances, one tax system may appear more favourable than the other, but a change in the assumed circumstances can readily change the conclusion.

December 1, 1978
Economic Policy
The thing that is wrong with the kind of comparison or statement that our interest rate is good because the United States interest rate has done thus and so is that it does not deal with where Canada is and where Canada is going.
Do I sense by your motion, Mr. Speaker, that I am almost out of time?


An hon. Member:: We will extend it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Is it agreed that the hon. member should continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Rob Parker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and, I thank hon. members for their indulgence.
Comparisons that dwell on how well we are doing in relation to the United States or any other nation are not ultimately useful. Over the past few months the government has made considerable reference to the fact that Canada is a healthy country in a difficult world. The government have said that all the problems we face-inflation, unemployment and son on- are essentially caused by factors outside our borders and outside our control. They have said that inflation comes from the Arab oil price increases, unemployment comes from Hong Kong and Taiwan, and presumably our weather comes from Alaska! Nothing can be done by this government.
We have done much by way of argument against that theory of the government. However, we are not doing well compared to other nations. The figures are there and they are clear. Given our favoured resource picture and a well distributed and educated population, we are not doing even equally as well as other nations in the world with which we are compared, we are doing worse. It is not how well or how poorly we are doing in comparison to some other nation, it is how well we are doing on our own that is important. It is how Canadians regard the management of the economy and the effects of the policy that this government puts into operation that counts.
One should not point to other nations in the world with an equally high unemployment rate and then say our rate is not our fault. Every time things go well this government takes credit for it, or tries to; but every time things go badly the government blames somebody else. We were told by the Prime Minister that we in the opposition are enemies, that the provinces are enemies, and certainly the media are enemies for reporting all of this. "It is someone else's fault" is what the government says; "we are doing what is right" 1 do not think that doing what is right, if that is the case, would lead to one million people out of work. It would not lead to a 9 per cent inflation rate, to a devalued dollar, or to the kind of messing with figures that we have seen in this particular study that I have indicated, throughout the speech of the parliamentary secretary, and indeed throughout the speeches of most members on the government side.
The motion presented by the Social Credit party this afternoon reads:
That this House deplores the double standard applied by the government in deliberately reducing the buying power of Canadian workers and families while allowing an increase in the interest rates which will result in higher revenues for financial institutions, an increase in the inflation rate, as well as a heavier public debt.
Although I agree with some parts of this motion, I think that the motion is too long. It could come down to a very few words; for example, "That this House deplores this government."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Knight Andras: May I congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, for getting your tongue around my new and extended title. I am still having difficulty with it myself!


Stanley Howard Knowles: A rose by any other name-


Robert Knight Andras: I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
This motion before us has had some comments made about it, and I will continue by adding mine. It manages to combine a number of misconceptions, as the previous speaker has said, in a very long sentence. First, I would like to respond to the concern over interest rates which has been expressed in the motion. Then for a few moments I would like to turn to the question of how Canadians are faring in terms of real income, and finally I would like to make some observations on the profit picture of our corporations.
None of us welcome increases in interest rates, but sometimes higher interest rates are a bit like old age-they are not so bad when one considers the alternative. What is the alternative in our present circumstances which have led the Bank of Canada to raise interest rates, admittedly several times this year, to their current levels? The governor of the Bank of Canada has set out the considerations we face in a clear and forthright way in recent speeches. He has stressed that the bank is very much aware of the concern over high interest rates.
Canada is currently importing more goods and services than it is exporting. Therefore, an inflow of money must be attracted from abroad to cover this deficit. We are indeed making progress on a number of aspects of this balance of payments deficit. Looking at trade in goods alone, we are in a surplus position. The surplus in the first three quarters of this year is running more than $1 billion higher than it was in the corresponding period last year. As the positive effects on trade of our lower dollar continue to build and we maintain our much improved domestic cost performance, particularly relative to costs in the United States, I think we can look forward to further improvement in our trade surplus and to a further reduction in our over-all deficit on goods plus services. But for the present, as I have said, we have to face the fact of that deficit and the necessity of attracting inflows of funds to cover it. If financial conditions in Canada are not such as to attract sufficient funds from abroad, we can expect further deprecia-

December 1, 1978

tion, quite possibly substantial further depreciation, of our exchange rate.
We all know and recognize that depreciation of the dollar is not always a bad thing. It was also recognized that Canadian costs had become significantly out of line with costs in our trading position, particularly with our major trading partner, namely the United States, over the years up to 1976. We have to acknowledge that there has been a downward adjustment of the dollar, which was bound to occur sooner or later and had to occur if the conditions for growth of employment, output and investment in our manufacturing industries and many of our other exporting industries was to be re-established.
We also know that the devaluation or depreciation of the dollar has increased our rate of inflation. Unfortunately, that price had to be paid. Instead of the pessimism that is around for whatever reason or motivation, there is reason to believe that we have re-established a reasonably favourable competitive position which, with time, will allow us to move into a more sustainable balance of payments position.
We are also in a very critical period as temporary price and income controls come to an end. If we can continue to bring down the underlying rate of inflation our prospects for growth in employment and real income in the 1980s are very promising. If domestic inflation starts to flare up again, those prospects will fade.
The critical nature of the period immediately ahead and the recent pressure on prices because of devaluation which has already occurred, together with food prices, has led the government to provide some offset to immediate pressures on prices through the sales tax reduction which my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) announced the other night, through the earlier gas excise tax reduction in a previous budget, and indeed in our hope for deferral, if it comes about, of the oil price increase on January 1, 1979. That has led the bank and the government to be a little concerned to moderate any further pressures on costs and prices that could occur through exchange rate fluctuations. Thus there has been action to moderate the pace and scale of further exchange rate adjustments and to moderate the danger of a serious overshoot in that adjustment.
Foreign borrowing to supplement our exchange reserves has been part of this action, as have the actions of the Bank of Canada. In the governor's words, "we must give priority for a time to the need to maintain confidence in the Canadian dollar in foreign exchange markets". Faced with rising interest rates in international capital markets, this has required increases in our domestic rates. Hopefully, the need to maintain rates at current levels will be of relatively short duration. With further progress in reducing inflation we should be able to look forward to one of the rewards of lower inflation: lower interest rates on average. The government supports the policies of the Bank of Canada, including the interest rate response to the current situation. The alternative for our exchange rate and for inflation would be still less desirable.
Economic Policy
I would like to turn to the second part of the motion before us, which alleges that the government is deliberately reducing the purchasing power of workers and families. There is a short and very justified response. It is simply: Nonsense! In saying that, perhaps it would be wise to state for the hon. member who put forward the motion a little more detail.
First let us look at government actions this year. A special personal income tax cut took effect last January to give an extra boost to purchasing power. The federally-financed retail sales tax cut provided a further boost.
In August, at the same time that I was announcing severe cuts across a wide range of government expenditures, the government rearranged the family allowances and child benefit system so as to give more assistance to lower income families. The real purchasing power of older Canadians with modest incomes is already protected by the full indexation of the old age pension, the guaranteed income supplement, and the Canada pension plan. But as part of a general policy of reallocating our admittedly limited resources to where they were most needed, and in recognition of the above average share which food occupies in the expenditure of lower income retired individuals and couples, the government also provided an additional increase, over and above full indexation, in the guaranteed income supplement.
Two weeks ago my colleague the Minister of Finance introduced his budget which, through the sales tax cut and the increase in the employment expense deduction under the personal income tax, will further assist the purchasing power of Canadians, and in particular working Canadians, in 1979. These measures come on top of full indexation of our tax system which is a very important form of protection against one of the ways in which inflation can reduce real purchasing power. This is a type of purchasing power protection which citizens in most other countries do not enjoy.
We must recognize that the counterpart of the very rapid growth in our real incomes which took place from 1970 to 1976 was that our competitive position got rather badly out of line. A pause in real income growth was an inevitable part of bringing our competitive position back in line and re-establishing the conditions for employment growth. The government's actions have been designed to help ease this aspect of the adjustment. Our expenditure restraint has allowed us to make major cuts in taxes which have cushioned this adjustment in real incomes.
As we go through this difficult period of adjustment to income levels which are sustainable given our productivity and competitive position, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that Canadians are still faring very well in terms of increases and the improvement in their standard of living compared with a few years ago. As the Minister of Finance noted, real after-tax income per employee in Canada increased by 7 per cent in the last three years, whereas it decreased by 2 per cent in the United States. This is a difference of about 3 per cent per year in the annual rate of increase. I am talking about real income.

December 1, 1978
Economic Policy
Some critics have responded that Canada has had higher real income growth for an extended period, and that no special significance should be attached to the result for the last three years. The fact is that during the preceding ten years, the amount by which the average annual increase in real after-tax income in Canada exceeded the increase in the United States was only about half as large as during the last three years. Therefore, those figures and the significance of them represent a very current and immediate period.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on criticism about profits. Corporate profits have shown substantial rates of increase over recent quarters. Of course, profits typically vary a good deal up and down. In 1975 total corporate profits actually decreased 1.8 per cent whereas total wages increased by close to 17 per cent. In 1976, profits increased by almost 3 per cent whereas wages increased by almost 16 per cent.
In this period, when our costs were becoming increasingly out of line and the exchange rate adjustment had not yet occurred, profits were experiencing much of the initial squeeze which these adverse developments implied for the economy. If the squeeze had continued, we could have expected even less employment and invesment growth than has occurred, and much poorer prospects, in terms of the platform from which we now go forward. Last year the rates of increase in total profits and total wages were very similar, but this year the increase in profits is running ahead of wages, in part because profits tend to receive much of the initial benefit of the exchange rate depreciation. The share of profits is now back up to something like normal levels, though well below levels reached in 1973 and 1974.
Concern has been expressed that profit increases may worsen price performance, and also that high profits may be a target for wage negotiations-contributing in this way as well to a new inflationary spiral. In its report to the First Ministers Conference at the beginning of this week, the Centre of the Study of Inflation and Productivity noted the improved profit position of corporations, the moderation in labour costs and the recent reduction in federal sales tax. It expressed the view that corporations should be exercising a substantial degree of price and profit restraint, and urged firms to use the depreciation of the exchange rate to expand their markets rather than just raise their prices. I would add that the reinvestment of the improved profits is also critical to our short and longer-term prospects. Indeed, the budget has increased the encouragement provided by the tax system to such reinvestment.
Mr. Speaker, I hope Canadians in business, in the labour movement and in this House will read the report of the Centre of the Study of Inflation and Productivity very carefully. 1 hope they will quote it in context and not out of context. They will find in that report the concern about profits and prices to which I referred and which has already been raised in this House. They will also find that recent developments regarding profits are treated by that report in what I call the proper
perspective. The report notes, for example, that while it appears that profit increases may have contributed somewhat to the rapid increase in food prices over the last year, they were by no means the major cause.
Given the problems we face and the shifting international economic conditions under which we must operate-and there is no rhetoric which will convince Canadians that there is not reality to the recognition that we do not live as an isolated community and that conditions in other countries do affect us-policy decisions in that context are difficult. I do not care who has to make them; the responsibility for making policy decisions in economic matters these days is not a simple thing. I think the actions of the government and of the Bank of Canada are best suited to encouraging sustained non-inflationary growth in employment, output and incomes.


Mr. Richard Janelle (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take part in the debate on the excellent motion moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier), and show the House how the government applies the double standard policy with regard to Canadian financial institutions.
The government is responsible for the extraordinary increase in the the revenues of banks and financial institutions in two different ways. First, when the government allows the Bank of Canada to raise its interest rate, it indirectly allows the institutions affiliated to the central bank to pass the increases on to the consumer. Naturally, the new interest rates allow chartered banks and other financial institutions to extend their profit margins. However, the small wage earner must suffer from those new interest rates and carry a heavier debt load.
It is not rare these days to meet people paying 20 per cent interest on their loans. Since wages do not go up as often as interest rates do, the difficulties occurring at the time of the loan prove insurmountable. The consumer must generally pay the original amount of his loan several times over. Second, the federal government must be held directly responsible for the exhorbitant increase in the annual revenues of financial institutions because, in a sense, the government sets the rules. Indeed, the federal government is responsible for the amendments made every ten years to the Bank Act, loan companies, trust companies and co-operative credit associations. So. the government sets the broad rules of the game of financial markets. Unfortunately, the government and its Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) accept the expansionist aspirations of large Canadian banking institutions and draft the legislation with those big bankers in mind. In this way, since the Bank of Canada was set up as a regulatory body the government has been the agent of big financiers by increasing their powers which are normally reserved for banks. The ordinary man must control his frustrations as he watches the big banks get richer while his purchasing power gradually shrinks.
Let us look at a few facts concerning those big institutions. Chartered banks take the larger part of the revenues coming

December 1, 1978

from the financial sector. It is not a surprising statistic as the ten major chartered banks have 7,000 branches. Furthermore, the five major chartered banks alone control approximately 90 per cent of the Canadian financial market. This centralization of the financial sector accounts for the excessive concentration of financial power in the hands of a small minority of individuals and the enormous share of revenues they draw every year from various sources. The total assets of the chartered banks have increased at a rate of 400 per cent during the last ten years, a period which coincides with the last bank reform. The present government was already in power at that time. Banking revenues have therefore increased by 400 per cent while the purchasing power of workers and Canadian families was being constantly eroded by an ever rising rate of inflation and not too surprisingly, since the banks were one of the prime factors behind the increasing costs of production.
The assets of chartered banks were $31.7 million in 1968 while their total assets went up to $162.4 million in May 1978. This means then a $130.7 million increase over a period of ten years. When one considers that these institutions get a sizable part of their rollover funds through the deposits of low and medium income workers, it is sad to note that the excessive profit margins were not reflected at all in the interests paid on deposits and savings accounts. The total assets of banks have increased from 1972 and 1975 at the same rate they had increased during the entire previous century. These were the results of the 1968 bank reform. The Liberal government allowed the ceiling on interest rates to be removed when that review took place. The Social Credit Party of Canada then predicted the dangers such a measure held in store for the Canadian economy.
The hon. member for Roberval who moved this motion today also mentioned those risks in the debate on the antiinflation act, when he said on October 20, 1975, in the House of Commons, and I quote:
What, in my opinion, is more fantastic yet, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that all through his long speech, the minister did not refer to today's inadmissibly high rates of interest. The true inflation spiralling started when this government removed the chartered banks interest ceiling.
I said so the day after that decision and I said here that Canada would experience its worst years of inflation ever. The first serious step should have been to freeze the Bank of Canada's discount rate at 4 per cent.
And the hon. member for Roberval was perfectly right. We have proof of it today. After discussing the performance of banks by reviewing their liabilities and assets, we should look at the revenues and expenditures of those institutions which reflect more or less the same conditions. Between 1968 and 1977, total revenues of banks increased by some 424 per cent, from $2,209 billion to $11,569 billion in 1977. The major part of these revenues comes more and more from accrued interests on bank loans. In 1968, the percentage of total bank revenues from interests on loans represented 70 per cent. In 1973, that percentage reached 80 per cent, while in 1977 it reached 84
Economic Policy
per cent. During the same period, from 1968 to 1977, bank revenues from stocks, shares and other operating revenues went down from 30 per cent to 16 per cent, which means that chartered banks are progressively earning a larger share of their income from the public while the people get more and more into debt.
I feel it is unfair for the federal government to support a bank system that takes openly advantage of the people, but it is also a fact that banks pay interest rates on deposits and mortgages bonds and that the percentage of money they pay back to the public in interests is rather low. In fact, the increase in expenditures paid in the form of interests on deposits or mortgage bonds has been significantly lower than the percentage of revenues earned by banks as interest on loans. In other words, the average citizen gets ever lower returns on his investment while the banks ever increasing profits on the back of the small investor. The Minister of Finance feels that we save too much; the banks use children in their publicity, telling us that we are helping to increase the capital of the country, when in fact they are trying mostly to serve their own interests.
Let us now look at another aspect of banking operations. The percentage of expenses paid out by the banks in salaries, retirement funds and various other contributions, has decreased over the last ten years compared with their over-all expenditures, moving progressively from 26 per cent of their total expenditures to 20 per cent, and finally 19 per cent. So, as bank revenues increased, the money spent in salaries decreased. That fact proves clearly the present trend towards reducing the purchasing power of the consumers who work in the banking sector. That tendency is becoming even more alarming when one considers that during the years under study, the number of male employees in banks increased by 26 per cent, while that of female employees more than doubled. It seems, therefore, that the latter category of employees paid the bill for the prosperity of the financial sector, since women usually work for lower salaries. All those facts would explain, once again, why the purchasing power of the average consumer has decreased since the present Prime Minister came to power. Thanks to the elimination of certain limits during the 1968 Bank Act review, banks were in a position to gain a firm hold over the mortgage market and consumer loans, leading in these two areas to an extraordinary increase between 1967 and 1977. The mortgage market is one of the most profitable assets for banks. In 1967 banks held only $840 million in mortgages while in 1977, due to the government weakness towards chartered banks, their assets soared to $11.6 billion. Now chartered banks are threatening to control the mortgage market and reduce considerably the activities of other financial institutions such as trust companies which rely particularly on their own profitability on the financial market to go on making profits.
By adopting its irresponsible banking legislation, the government triggered off a reduction of competition on the mortgage
S00A7 -.ta

December 1, 1978
Economic policy
market. And when competition diminishes, it always has a negative impact on the people who are no longer free in their financial operations with banking institutions. Because of the banking policy of this same government, banks also captured an ever larger share of the consumer loans market. In 1967, banks had the equivalent of $3.6 billion in assets of this category while in 1977 they controlled $20.2 billion-a 461 per cent increase in ten years.
In recent years, other financial institutions have considerably added to their assets but with no obvious benefits to the general public. Compared to the chartered banks, trust and mortgage companies increased their assets by 310 per cent between 1968 and 1977. These companies had boosted their income on loans by 700 per cent between 1972 and 1977 while raising their assets in mortgage loans and sales contracts by 400 per cent. Finance or consumer loans companies and savings banks in Quebec increased their assets by 164 per cent and 150 per cent respectively between 1967 and 1977. Fortunately, during the last ten years the assets of financial institutions such as caisses populaires and credit unions also rose by 480 per cent. Since the assets of this type of institution increase even faster than those of powerful chartered banks, it is easy to see why the public sees in them a people-oriented organization which is more likely to meet the needs of average citizens. But because the five major banks control such a large share of the financial market-90 per cent-the public support given to the "caisses populaires" and the credit unions is not enough to compensate.
In any event, it is quite obvious that Canada's financial system, which was reviewed and regulated by the Liberal government, has allowed the chartered banks to keep the people under their control as far as consumer credit is concerned. Between 1967 and 1977, the total amount of credit granted by major lenders increased by 272 per cent. In 1967, the two major lenders were the chartered banks, with 44 per cent of the market, followed by finance or loan companies, with 41 per cent of the market. Ten years later, under the aegis of this government's fiscal policy, the banks held 76 per cent of the total amount of consumer credit. The government was not satisfied with allowing the interest rate increase steadily and the Canadian people run deeper and deeper into debt. No. Moreover the national executive, thanks to banking regulations that show no concern for the needs of ordinary people, has let an increasing share of credit to be controlled by the banks. Such federal incompetence contributed to a decrease in the purchasing power of the Canadian people while allowing financial institutions to fill their coffers at our expense.
But the Social Credit Party of Canada is not only concerned with the increased revenues going in the financial system. We are also concerned, Mr. Speaker, with the fact that financial institutions and particularly chartered banks are getting more and more control over the market. All financial organizations should base their operations on the needs of the population as a whole, and this includes small and medium businesses, rather

than concentrating on the demands of the affluent and big corporations. The needs of the people must be filled, and to that end a healthy competitive climate is needed where fairness is the rule of the game. Hovewer in introducing certain pieces of legislation this government has shown that it had no intention whatsoever to give the average citizen a larger share in the financial wealth of the country. 1 am referring of course to the proposals which are found in the omnibus legislation, Bill C-15. We were really looking forward to see how the government, in introducing the ten-year review of the Bank Act, would implement their stated intention to increase competition within the banking system. Until control of that system is returned to the people, under the leadership of a Social Credit government, an even minimal decentralization of financial institutions would have been welcome. But we had been waiting in vain. When the Bill passed, we saw once more that the government had one law for the rich and another for the poor. Their speech changes according to whom they are speaking to.
Let me take a few moments to elaborate on this, because that part of the legislation in the long run will affect the financial well-being of every Canadian. This is relevant to our motion because financial market structures and the way their contents is regulated influence the growth and profitability of financial institutions. This is why financial operations should be shared on fair basis by all institutions accepting deposits, in order that consumers may reap the benefits of a free market system. However, the government has gone against its stated intention and has introduced legislation which grants more power to chartered banks and does not attempt to defend the interests of average Canadians. Moreover, these same banks have convinced the government to reduce other limitations on their business powers. In fact, they will be invited to corner an even greater part of the housing mortgage market, even though this authorization will threaten the existence of consumer trust and loan companies. It is tragic that this government has once again refused to listen to the Canadian consumers who have been requesting that a ceiling of 6 per cent be again placed on interest rates.
In the part of Bill C-15 which concerns the creation of a Canadian Payments Association, the government has shown once again its lack of concern for ordinary citizens. The Canadian Payments Association, which will be established under this legislation, will have a very great role to play in the development of an electronic payment system. However, our government experts have forgotten to include proposals to guarantee that consumers will be represented on the board of directors of this association. Since all monetary operations between financial institutions will be eventually controlled by the CPA, it is imperative that the public should be able to influence to a certain extent the policy of this association.
In Bill C-15, the government betrays its desire to create even more chartered banks by making it more easy for them to set into the market. The performance of these institutions must have a more direct application to the Canadian economy. It is up to the government to include in its review of bank legisla-
December 1, 1978

tion provisions which will force financial institutions to retain 15 per cent of their profits to create an investment fund. This money should be invested in the sectors of the Canadian economy which need to be stimulated.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. 1 regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allowed to him has expired. However, he may continue with the consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Janelle).


Richard Janelle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I also thank the hon. members on both sides of the House. As 1 was saying, the funds earmarked by chartered banks for investment purposes should be invested in Canadian economic sectors which need stimulation. The development of such sectors should be designed to increase the general welfare of all Canadians. That kind of controlled investment would provide employment, increase production and support our external trade.
The lack of such a proposal is a great deficiency in Bill C-15. However, considering the past performance of this incompetent government, is it any wonder that it has always encouraged financial institutions instead of looking after the long-term welfare of Canadians?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, this occasion is quite unique in that the motion of the Social Credit party raises the subject of interest rates. I was very concerned when I heard the budget speech and listened to the ensuing debate from both sides. At this time it is important to discuss the question of interest rates in our domestic monetary and fiscal policies, and we owe a debt to the Social Credit party for bringing this subject forward.
Earlier this afternoon the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Martin) participated in this debate. It was a rare occasion to hear a member of the government actually discussing the theory of budgeting and domestic monetary policy. Since 1 have been interested in the subject of monetary theory over the last 20 years, I could do no less than reply in kind.
The President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers (Mr. Andras) had recited a series of myths which have surrounded the government since the war. I will not go through the entire series but I should like to deal with just one, and that is interest rates. He suggested that interest rates were like old age: we must face up to them and accept them because of the alternative. That same attitude has been prevalent in the Bank of Canada and the Department of Finance ever since I have been here.
I recall with great vividness the days of the Diefenbaker administration. At that time a new government, without a
Economic Policy
single person in cabinet who had previously been in government, attempted to face up to the realities of governing the country. The only advice it received was that which came from the Department of Finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada. Even though the inflation rate at that time was approximately 1 per cent or 2 per cent, the department's officials and the Bank of Canada were worried. They began to push the idea that it was necessary to have higher interest rates in order to hold down inflation. Their idea was accepted by the government. In fact, businessmen flocked in and indicated that the idea was wonderful. Their job was to convert the debt.
Approximately $6.25 billion was converted to the higher rate of interest. The people in the Bank of Canada and the Department of Finance deliberately set about raising the interest rate step by step. In a year and a half it rose approximately 20 per cent. Thus, the value of the bonds purchased by Canadians dropped by 20 per cent. Until this year, it was the greatest theft in the history of western civilization. I say that because a new record has been set today by the same mythology: if one wants to hold down inflation, one must raise interest rates. The same view is held by advisers to the American government. As I said in my budget speech two weeks ago, Canadians should not become involved in the same mess simply because the Americans have made such a fatal blunder.
I am not attempting to defend everything the minister said today. I realize the type of material which the nitwits in the Bank of Canada and the Department of Finance put before every minister of finance. In view of the quantitative evidence we have today and which we did not have 20 years ago, it is thoroughly insulting when a faceless group of people advise the minister to stand up in the House and recite such a mythology.
Canadians are not interested in discussing theory. They know Canada is a strong country. They ask why we have been in a stagnant position for the last five years-when there is ample material wealth in our mines, forests and land, as well as wealth of human resources. The answer is in the fact that for the last 30 years the government has been receiving the same type of advice as the government of the United States. As the evidence develops, it is apparent that what Canadians thought was the truth 30 years ago is no longer the truth. The people we pay to run the Bank of Canada and advise the Minister of Finance should think more along these lines.
A little over a year ago, the economists of this nation met in Montreal in order to look at this problem. These disciplined economists who have been running this country for 30 years in business and in government finally faced up to reality and admitted publicly that they do not know where we have been, do not know where we are and do not know where we are going. These economists have now said this publicly, but economists have been saying this for four or five years in the United States. Yet still those who advise the governments of Canada and the United States are pouring out the same pap to those who are elected to govern the United States and Canada as they have for the last 30 years.
80067-3 8V2

December 1, 1978
Economic Policy
Let me get down to some details. In my budget speech I referred to interest rates. I will not take too much time, but I want to quote four lines as follows:
-I am simply saying, as bluntly and as candidly as I can, that to move along the road of raising interest rates as a device to keep our dollar from dropping- is going to be costly for the people of Canada over the next year or so.
1 went on to make an exhortation. I was not the only one who attacked this mythology that if you raise interest rates you will check inflation. The new member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. de Cotret), who has risen to high places among economists in this country, in making his maiden speech used these words, and his language is much better than mine. 1 do not know how to use all these words correctly, but 1 think he does. Let me quote him as follows:
In an environment in which there is rampant excess demand, inflation, shortage of manpower, shortage of goods and in which we are facing bottlenecks, certainly a higher level of unemployment traditionally has led to a decrease in inflationary pressures. But in an environment in which no such pressures exist from the demand side, in an environment in which there is ample excess capacity, in which demand is weak, and in which unemployment is hovering between the 8 per cent and 9 per cent level, the economic and social costs of unemployment, far from decreasing inflation, are fed right through the line, add to the over-all cost pressures on the economy, and contribute to a higher rate of inflation. At that point the policy prescription is clear: we can fight both unemployment and inflation at the same time. I remain firmly convinced that that is an objective which we should set for ourselves.
Let me emphasize that phrase "cost pressures", because that is something I do understand. The hon. member for Ottawa Centre has put into the language of the intellectual the precise words I would like to be able to say. What we have been saying in these last 30 years, and what we have been doing in that time in Canada and the United States, has been wrong. In other words, that you can help the unemployment situation and decrease inflation at the same time. But these people who advise the government keep standing up and saying, as we have heard here today, that you must keep a balance, because if you try to slow down inflation you are going to make more unemployment, and if you try to reduce unemployment you are going to create more inflation.
The fancy name for that is the Phillips curve. Every economist of any reputation at all today has admitted publicly that the Phillips curve is a myth, a false truth. Yet we have this government coming out at this late hour saying it must continue that type of thing.
Theory is all right, but I should like to bring this theory down to the subject of this motion, which is interest rates. To be able to draft domestic monetary and fiscal policy today, the government basically must accept the fact that we are not in a demand-pull type of inflation, which is all those experts based on Keynes learned 30 years ago. What we are in today is not a demand-pull situation. As the hon. member for Ottawa Centre explained, what we are in is a cost-push situation, and these cost-pushes are well defined. Number one is the growing cost of government in all countries, not just in Canada; number two is the money supply; and number three is interest costs. There are three more of them.

1 accept what the parliamentary secretary said today in a well reasoned speech, that the Bank of Canada is beginning at long last to grapple with the problem of oversupply of money. It set up in the last three years these targets, although in the last two or three weeks it has got off target. Generally speaking, the Bank of Canada has done a good job in respect of what it calls the Ml money supply, but not so good a job in respect of M2 and M3. At least the bank is trying on that one point.
While trying to control the money supply, which adds up to a cost, the bank has deliberately raised our bank rate six times in the last year. This means in dollars and cents a fantastic amount of money in cost, particularly when you consider cost of business expanding in what is termed capital intensive areas. Most of our business falls into that category. When you get through all the guff of discounting cash flow which business uses, and after looking at all the things government and private industries are doing, buying farms and homes, you will find that in this enterprise which is capital-intensive approximately 75 per cent of the cost is interest cost. With such a big proportion of our costs being interest, and interest being one of the main cost-pushes in inflation, any government that will allow the Bank of Canada or the officials of the Department of Finance to push a policy of raising interest rates should have its head examined.
This government in all honesty and conviction came out strongly this last year in favour of a floating dollar. The big reason for having a floating dollar is that it makes you independent of other countries in respect of handling your domestic monetary and fiscal policy. It is only when you have a pegged dollar or a dollar tied to the system of other countries that you take on the burdens of those other countries as well as the assets. When your dollar is floating, each country is able to get at its basic domestic problems of inflation and unemployment. As a matter of fact, it is by having a floating dollar that you allow the world system to come in and help. When we get into trouble domestically the results show up in the value of our dollar internationally, and that is when the world system provides an advantage so that we can recover from our troubles. When you try to fool around with a dirty float in order to control or protect the value of your dollar, either by borrowing big sums abroad as this government did, or by this horror of horrors of raising interest rates, you cut off these world forces from moving in to help.
I want to close my remarks with some figures relating to costs. Suppose we allow the dollar to float. There has been a great deal of discussion quantitatively about what this costs us. The minister said today that when our dollar goes down our inflation rate rises. But by how much? One statement from the bank through the Department of Finance was that every drop of one cent in the international value of our dollar costs us one-tenth of a point in inflation.
We have the quantitative analysis theory of Professor Mun-dell, a Canadian who moved to the United States and who says
December 1, 1978

that over the long run a drop of one point on foreign exchange increases inflation one point in Canada. As far as I am concerned, the cost is somewhere in between that one-tenth of a point and one point. Nobody seems to be able to say for sure-1 have talked to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) and other people about it-but the figure is probably halfway between. In other words, if our dollar drops one point our inflation rate costs go up half a point.
Let us now take a look at this in big figures. Let us suppose that this is applied to our total gross national product of over $200 billion. One per cent would equal $2 billion and half of one per cent would equal $1 billion. Therefore, if our dollar drops one point we can expect approximately $1 billion in extra costs for that year.
What would be the cost in interest rates? Our bank rate has gone up by roughly 50 per cent, from just over 7 per cent to 10.75 per cent, which means that our prime rate has gone up at least 30 per cent, from somewhere around 8 per cent to 11 per cent. It would be fair to say that the ordinary individual who borrows has had an increase of 10 per cent in his interest costs. If we take 10 per cent of this figure of $200 billion, we get $20 billion. On that basis, if the dollar had been allowed to float the people of Canada would have paid in a year's time $1 billion in extra costs, but by this monkeying around with extra interest rates it will cost this country in 1979 at least $20 billion. That is a fantastic burden for the people of Canada to carry. Even if you cut that figure in half and make it $10 billion, it is still a large burden because there is a great difference between $10 billion and $1 billion.
In my speech I have tried to emphasize, at my level of language, that by choosing the route of raising interest rates as a means of controlling inflation is a costly procedure, ten to one over letting the dollar float. The country is struggling to get out of a period of stagnation, but it is loaded down with the cost of interest which ultimately stops us from going ahead.
What happens in the next few months is very important to the government. They are gambling that the few measures in the current budget will keep the country moving along fast enough so they can say that the country is improving. If this load of interest ever takes hold, as it will, it will send us down into the pits again, and the government will have only themselves to blame. Surely there must be someone over there who takes the time to read what the evidence is. They have all heard of Mundell and Laffer, and they have all heard the Republicans of the United States saying the same thing we are saying. Common sense would indicate that what this motion says is not, as the government would have us believe, that the rise in interest rates is not inflationary, but that the rise in interest rates is inflationary; and therefore it is essentially sound on that point.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: 1
am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to be able to participate in this debate today. I would like to look at some of the questions raised by this motion. I have listened with interest to all the speeches that have been made in this debate. Although there are conflicting philosophies, there is, 1 believe, on the part of
Economic Policy
all those who have participated, a sincere desire to contribute some worth-while suggestions to the economic problems which we face in the country in the dilemma which governments find themselves at this particular juncture in history. I refer to governments of all political stripes, because if we look at the different governments across the nation, where there are political labels different from that of the federal government, they are doing no better than we are, unless there are extraordinary circumstances such as is the case in Alberta or areas which are being substantially helped by the federal government.
One of the proposals in this motion is that the House deplores the double standard of the government. I have noticed that only one speaker referred to that today, and he did so facetiously. The motion also talks about reducing the buying power of Canadian workers. It can be proven that the buying power of Canadian workers is in fact not being diminished. Indeed, I know of few countries where it costs workers as little as it costs workers in Canada to buy food, shelter, fuel, and the activities of leisure. So, by whatever stand one wants to pursue the fact is that in Canada we are doing very well on a relative basis compared to the other industrialized countries.
I would like to put a few figures on the record to prove my case. If we take a look at the real disposable income per capita and per employee in Canada as compared to the United States over the period of time this government has been in power- excepting this year because the figures are not in yet-taking 1968 as the base year of 100 and going through to 1977 we find that real personal disposable income per capita in Canada has risen from 100 to 151.9, whereas in the United States it has risen from 100 to 133. If we look at the real disposable income per capita for employees in Canada, we see that it has risen from 100 to 124, whereas in the United States it has risen from 100 to 112.3.
In other words, between 1968 and 1977 real personal disposable income per capita in Canada rose by 51.9 per cent and only by 33 per cent in the United States. Real personal disposable income per employee rose 24 per cent in Canada and 12.3 per cent in the United States. The United States, of course, is the foremost of the industrialized nations and the standard by which all other nations are judged.
Using that standard, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that we have done quite well in Canada. We have made much progress in distributing wealth but, of course, there is always more progress to be made. We have not solved all our problems and no one would suggest that, except, perhaps, some rightwingers who do not believe in distribution of the nation's wealth.
We have programs of social services to help those who are unable to earn their own living, to help the ill, the maimed, the abandoned. We have old age security and the guaranteed income supplement as well as the spouse's allowance, all of which combine to make one of the best programs of any nation in the world. We look after senior citizens, those who have contributed to the growth and development of our country. No one should apologize that we make these transfer payments to

December 1, 1978
Economic Policy
our senior citizens, because if anyone had earned that kind of security for their twilight years, it is those who have built this country.
We have mothers' allowances and the youth allowances which are now being refined. In fact, for those in need they are being increased by something in the order of $160 per child per year. That additional sum will be paid as a lump sum payment from the federal treasury at the end of each fiscal year.
We are redistributing wealth through two of the most ambitious social programs ever undertaken by any government. I refer, of course, to hospitalization and medicare. I cannot stress enough the importance and value of those two programs. I would be the last to suggest that there have not been abuses of them or that the programs do not need some fine tuning. The fact is, however, that in Canada today we are raising a whole generation that has no idea what it means to pay a security-destroying medical or hospital bill. Those have been valuable social tools. I am sure there are senior citizens who are receiving first class medical treatment today who would have otherwise died long ago because they could not afford to go to a doctor or hospital. There are children growing up to be strong, useful and productive members of society who might have died because their parents could not afford to give them needed medical attention. Those are only two of the benefits of hospitalization and medicare.
Going back just thirty years, 1 think of my own family situation. My brother had to go to hospital for an appendectomy and my father had to borrow the money for that rather simple surgery from a bank. I am not about to go on any great political or emotional binge attacking the banks. Obviously, everything is not right with them or, indeed, with other things; but at least the banks serve a purpose and I think we should be responsible in our criticisms of them.
In the list of social programs, two others must be mentioned. The first is the Canada Pension Plan which is providing a source of security particularly for workers who are unorganized and do not have strong unions to negotiate a pension plan. All workers in Canada can look forward to a guaranteed source of income at retirement and will not have drastically to reduce their standard of living or beg from their families for shelter, food or any of the necessities of life.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we have unemployment insurance which has already been mentioned. This is also a social program which has been abused somewhat by workers but there have also been abuses by employers. I will not say any more about that today as 1 have already expressed my views on previous occasions.
A negative motion such as the one before the House is symptomatic of the negativism that is rampant in the country today. I wonder why.


Mr. Ellis:: 1 wonder why!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: One of the reasons is sitting over there, Mr. Speaker. There are people who

see advantage in poor-mouthing our country. There are people who have not said one positive thing about Canada in this House in the last two years, I am sure. That is their choice, but let us look at how Canadians live.
There are all sorts of amenities in Canada today that most Canadians did not dream of a quarter of a century ago or even fifteen years ago. By any standard we are better off than almost any other nation in the world. That is not to say there are no problems, but I suggest we will not solve our problems by failing to recognize our successes. A nation's successes are important to the nation just as an individual's successes are important to the individual. If there is no sense of accomplishment. of achievement, of pride, then the individual will wither and so will the nation.
I urge those who seem to enjoy going about wringing their hands and complaining about how awful things are and what a terrible state the nation is in to start thinking about how gifted this nation is, how gifted its citizens are to have the advantages that have been bestowed upon them through divine providence. I urge them to be more thankful and less inclined to poor-mouth our achievements.
In the debate today we heard many criticisms and not much of a positive nature. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Rae), for instance, suggested there were two things that the review of the Bank Act should do but is not doing. One was to guarantee that banks will not make excess profits. That is a very laudable objective and 1 do not think anyone would argue with it. I am not so sure that it is always the obligation of the government, however. I would expect the New Democratic Party to put forward that view, of course, but surely those great lip service proponents of free enterprise and the free enterprise system, the Tories, would not agree that government alone is responsible for that. Surely market forces must be responsible to some extent for making the banks competitive and for seeing that they do not make excess profits.
The second mandatory condition was that a certain percentage of excess profits be used to subsidize some types of borrowing. If there are to be no excess profits, then certain percentages of nothing is nothing. So there would be no money to set aside in subsidization of certain types of borrowings. His argument is in effect a self-defeating argument.
I listened to the argument of the hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton). I must say 1 always enjoy his speeches; he delivers them with such power and force and such experience that they are a joy to listen to. But when he starts talking about a false truth, I become confused. One would only expect to hear that from the official opposition. Indeed, I did enjoy his explanation of the floating dollar but I do not agree with it. The floating dollar, as he said, is a way to align our economy with the other economies of the free world. But there is certainly more to it than that.
I want to return more specifically to the motion, which talks about a heavier public debt, and I want to spend just a few moments dealing with that. I will deal with it by going back
December 1, 1978

over a period of 25 years. In 1952 the per capita debt in Canada as a percentage of the gross national product was 42.9 per cent. In 1968 when this government came to power the debt as a percentage of gross national product was 22.7 per cent, almost half the figure for 1952. But in 1977, Mr. Speaker, the debt as a percentage of the gross national product on a per capita basis was 14.1 per cent. In other words, it was one-third of what it was in 1952 in percentage terms. That indicates we have been doing pretty badly, doesn't it? It indicates the bottom has fallen out of our world and Canada will come tumbling down!
1 know my time is up and I do not want to take extra time. The party who proposed this motion has another speaker and I do not want to deprive him of his time. I will conclude by saying that although we have problems in Canada, we are not on the verge of bankruptcy and we are not on the verge of destruction. We are a strong, healthy country and Canada is still the best country of any in which to live.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. At the expense of not more than 30 seconds, could I ask the hon. member a brief question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: This can be done only with unanimous consent and with the agreement of the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne). Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, in the hon. member's remarks he mentioned that a number of members in this House had been bad-mouthing the country. I know a lot of people who have criticized the government and its policies, but would he please name one member in this House who has bad-mouthed the country?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, he only wants to take up to 30 seconds-


John Raymond Ellis: Name just one.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I will not get into the business of naming individual members. All one has to do is to listen to speeches made by some members in this House and outside the House and it will be clear that there are members of this House who are spreading doom and gloom across the country.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, our parliamentary system provides for allotted days, and they are useful, I think. It is a kind of closed retreat for participating members. It is the same as in other areas, the majority does not participate, but those who do so derive some benefits. In any event, the purpose of those allotted days is to bring the government to reflect on their administration, and also to blame them if necessary and to submit solutions to them. The hon. member who spoke before me seemed a little offended by
Economic Policy
the criticism made on this side of the House. I for one think that it is our responsibility to make positive criticism. However, I understand that hon. members on the government side want to demonstrate the achievements of this government.
I quite agree on this point. But to say that we propose motions which mean nothing is unacceptable in my opinion because this is an insult for this institution. I do not believe that a member of parliament could ever propose a motion on an allotted day simply for the pleasure of opposing the government. Mr. Speaker, today's motion proposed by the Social Credit Party, of which I am very proud, has created much interest in this House, and I have heard the comments of several members. I was struck by those made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose-Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) earlier. His statements really surprised me, and not because I do not agree with them as I believe that some of the things he said were quite logical and in line with the motion under consideration.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier), who proposed the motion, made a very good speech. I believe that he talked most seriously about the problems and that he followed the purpose of the motion by showing that our public financing system has become outdated because of the time in which we live. There are attempts to change all sorts of things, but none to change the financial system, which is not totally bad in itself, but which should be corrected if we truly want our country to become richer and each Canadian to be ensured of the security which is a basic aspiration of every individual, as well as the means to make a good living.
If we want this, changes will have to be made. The motion sums up in a few words the present financial situation. Mr. Speaker, the debt and the interest rates are mentioned in the motion. Everyone is aware of these problems, but I would like to quote a few figures as this is the cancer which creates inflation and unemployment and erodes our economy.
We have an economy lacking the fresh, pure blood it needs in order to perform well and provide everybody with his minimum requirement.
1 know, Mr. Speaker, that we have gone a long way in the past thirty years. It would be a pity if we had not progressed but something else has progressed over the last thirty years and that is our public debt wich has increased and is now growing more rapidly than ever before. The last budget shows it will increase tremendously. It is this type of public financing that we object to. We are not blaming the people who make up the government, definitely not. The sponsor of this motion made this point quite clear. We are not attacking persons but a government which is now running off track and allow some individuals in our country to make windfall profits at the expense of the majority. This is why in its wording our motion stated that this government has applied a double standard.

December 1, 1978
Economic Policy
Mr. Speaker, in 1867 the debt of Canada was then $75 million. Back in those days it was acceptable! In the following years and until 1914, it rose to about $545 million. It was not too bad yet. But in 1939, at the outset of the second world war, that debt had reached a level of $3,700 billion. When the present government took over, our national debt was close to $33 billion. Nine years later, in 1977, the federal debt had doubled to $67 billion. Well, these are figures of the past. Let us turn to the future and see what it has in store, in order to know what must be done to correct the situation. Well, Mr. Speaker, in this book I have here, the budget speech made in this House by the Minister of Finance on November 16, I find statistics and figures. Such is the minister's role. He puts the budget forward, so he must supply figures. And his figures are quite revealing. The motion now before us includes statements.
The budget deficit forecast for 1978-79 is roughly $11.5 billion. It may still increase, because there are a number of months to go till March 31. This, Mr. Speaker, includes interests to the tune of $6.5 billion. And this means we are sinking deeper into debt this very moment. This the people have to know, they are old enough to swallow it. It is easy to use lofty and make all sorts of suggestions, but our duty is to be specific and to go to the bottom of things. It is somewhat more difficult, but it is needed and it works in my view.
In 1978-79, according to the budget, we will have to pay $6,950 million interest on the public debt. This means $13 million a day. Capital indebtedness increases $31 million a day. The total is $44 million a day. My intention is not to make ministers mad at me, it is not to have them tell me next week: The hon. member blames our expenditures but he is asking us for more projects, more money in his constituency, he is asking for this and for that. That argument I understand perfectly. We are not against normal government expenditures. What we are against is giving away more and more each year to the people who control the majority of the money supply. This is what we are against.
I will quote figures. In the current budget, forecasts for 1979-80, the minister says there will be a $13 billion deficit. This means $35 million a day, and $8,250 million will have to be spent on interest. And what does that mean, $22 million a day? It means three totals a day. On the forecast side, $57 million. This means $100 more a day per capita on interest alone.
The hon. member who spoke before me pointed out that family allowances and others had been increased which is fine by me; but if they had been increased to the same extent as the gifts made to those who control the money supply in this country, I think our families would be happy. In any event, I very willingly accept with many thanks all that can be done to help our neediest families, those which do not have the income required to meet their needs.
Mr. Speaker, it is expected that by March 31 our national debt will amount to the pretty sum of $80 billion. How shall

we ever be able to balance that budget? Well, taxes will be levied. And on whom? The government itself says so, on page 24 of the budget speech, under revenue: Direct taxes, persons: $20,620 million. For the current year, 1978-79, the amount was $18,360 million; and for the year prior to that, $17,245 million. We realize that personal income tax is progressively increasing and follows the same curve as our national debt and interest rates.
Now as concerns corporate income tax, whether for national or multinational corporations, in any event I take the figures as they are presented. In 1977-78, $5,229 billion, 1978-79, $5,730 billion and in 1979-80, $6,375 billion. So we can see that corporate income tax did not go up at the same rate as personal income tax. This is why the motion says: "double standard", and if I had the time to look objectively at the total revenues of private citizens in Canada and that of corporations, it would be interesting to realize that their revenues are generally higher than those of private citizens. This is why we consider that there should be an adjustment between personal income tax and corporate income tax. We might be told with some reason that we should give a chance to big corporations if we want them to create jobs and process our natural resources to manufacture the things our people need.
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that such a significant difference is not needed between private citizens' income and corporate income to have corporations interested in investing in our country and making our natural resources available to the public. I urge the government to study seriously the situation and to make the necessary changes. I understand that it takes guts and determined men to face those powerful corporations that are accustomed to get almost the whole pie. They must be told: Take only half of it and leave the rest for others. I understand that it takes guts, but we have the power to do it in parliament as parliament is the highest authority and we are prepared to support the efforts of government members in that respect.
Mr. Speaker, I do not speak through my hat and the new minister, the former president of the Treasury Board is listening to me carefully, but I am not sure that I have convinced him but, in any case, I will try to convince him with an article published in Le Devoir on May 24, 1978, which reads as follows:
Bank of Montreal profits up by 50 per cent in first quarter
And who said that? The chairman of the board and chief executive of the Bank of Montreal. We are not against profits but while they ask people to tighten their belt and cooperate with the authorities to stimulate the economy, we should also look to that side to see what is going on, apply the brakes and try to do something.
December 1, 1978

I for one am not in a position to evade income tax because I have not enough income. If I had a higher income I might be tempted to do so but in any event the article says this: After a two year investigation the government last month found out a terrible situation in chartered banks. The results have been made public by Mr. William Kenneth, general bank inspector, who appeared before the parliamentary finance committee. When the investigation was completed Mr. Chretien decided to plug a fiscal loophole in the budget he recently tabled in the House of Commons. He had announced that two well known methods of financing large Canadian companies by chartered banks would no longer be exempt from income tax. These are conditional interest bearing bonds and privileged shares. Investigators found out that the banks were reporting incomes from those sources as non-taxable dividends. That resulted in a loss for the federal and provincial treasuries of over $500 million with an anticipated loss for fiscal 1979-80 of some $150 million. That happened at the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. It is part of the lid that was lifted and under which it was discovered that there were irregular things going on. It is the duty and the function of government members to put some order in that area as well as in all others.
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the cabinet itself is aware that there are improvements to be made. They could do something about it but they wait too long, they do not act fast enough. The situations get worse while the remedies are being prepared, and when the remedy is administered, the disease is already too advanced. You have to start over again. It is the weakness of our democracy which is somewhat slow in proceeding when it comes to applying remedies. Mr. Speaker, not so long ago the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) made a statement, and she is right. That is why I say that government members are aware of the situation. She said, and I quote from Le Droit of May 29, 1978:
The poor families' share of income has hardly changed since the end of World War II-
Economic Policy
Of course incomes have increased but because of inflation expenses have gone up as well so you remain at the same level. It is like two barrels connected by a pipe-if you put water in one barrel, automatically the water rises in the other one and always stays level. That is the situation of families. The minister went on to say, I quote:
That leads to the conclusion that in spite of their good intentions, richer Canadians manage to get out of recessions on the backs of poor people.
I imagine she was referring to individuals, but you can apply the same reasoning to the economic structure which is in the hands of a small group of men who manage to get out of recessions on the backs of workers, on the backs of small people, who manage to do so because they are given certain privileges at the expense of workers, at the expense of the masses. It is up to the government to guarantee that there is as much justice as possible in a country, and that is the only way we are going to have harmony in this country, that we will be able to live together in harmony, despite our language, religions or social differences.
A federal-provincial conference was held here this week. It was a rehash of the same things that have been said over the last 50 years. The provinces want more income and the federal government tells them: Tax, if you want more, we hardly have enough for ourselves. Mr. Speaker, I think that the solution to all this is to do what Mackenzie King said 43 years ago, he stated at some point, and I quote:
Once a nation loses control over its currency and its credit, it does not matter much who in that nation makes laws. Once in control, money lenders will ruin any country. As long as control over currency and credit has not been restored to the government and acknowledged as being its most obvious and most sacred responsibility, any talk of democracy and parliament supremacy is vain and futile.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. It being five o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House, according to Standing Order 58(11), that the proceedings on this motion have expired. The House stands adjourned until Monday next at two o'clock, in accordance with Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, December 4, 1978


GOVERNOR GENERAL
Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest that the speeches of His Excellency the Governor General and of the Right Hon. Prime Minister, given during yesterday's ceremonies, be appended to this day's Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.

[ Translation]


VACANCY
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received a communication advising me of the following vacancy which has occurred in the representation, namely the hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer, C.P., member for the electoral district of Dollard, by resignation. Accordingly, I have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ of election for the said electoral district.


LOCATION OF TV CAMERAS IN CHAMBER
Mr. Speaker:: As part of the ongoing development of the television installations in the chamber, two camera positions, one on each side of the House, have now been changed to remote control operation. Members will notice the cameras are in different positions relative to the curtains and the sides of the House.
Perhaps hon. members will direct their attention to these installations over the next few days so that we can determine which of the two positions is better for the general conduct of business and decorum in the chamber. We hope, of course, to go on and in time to move the other two cameras into remote control from the mezzanine in accordance with the original plan.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, concerning the abandonment of various railway lines in the prairie provinces, an example of which is the unseemly and unjustifiable haste regarding the shutting down of the line from Shellbrook to Spiritwood.
I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Cadieu):
That this House request all abandonments to be held up until the First of September so that further consideration may be given to the argument of the residents in the areas who are so directly and unfairly affected.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43, the unanimous consent of the House is required before a motion can be introduced for debate. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In light of the fact that the Minister of Transport has now embraced the report of the Prairie Rail Action Committee which repudiates the Hall commission report, and has endorsed the decision of the Canadian Wheat Board to purchase hopper cars at the expense of the western grain producers, I would move, seconded by my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton):
That this House register its dismay and opposition to the policies of this government undermining the recommendations of the Hall Commission Report on Grain Handling and Transportation and the saddling of the western grain producer with the cost of grain transportation under questionable use of the Canadian Wheat Board Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for debate at this time only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?

January 23, 1979


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter as urgent and pressing as my two colleagues have raised concerning the Prairie Rail Action Committee report which recommends the abandonment of 1,416 miles of railway line in western Canada.
In view of the fact that in the 1974 election campaign the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) promised not to abandon rail service on branch lines as long as elevator companies considered that continued rail service was warranted, and since the PRAC report recommends the abandonment of 38 sections of rail line which the prairie wheat pools want maintained in the basic network, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the Minister of Transport and the Prime Minister live up to their promise and reject the Prairie Rail Action Committee's abandonment recommendations.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[Translation\


BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
Considering the impending federal-provincial conference to be held next month in Ottawa and considering the great importance given to the constitutional debate, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That, should the federal-provincial conference of first ministers on the constitution fail, the House of Commons demand that the government give its firm assurance that it will not act unilaterally to amend certain sections of the British North America Act.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE, TRADE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS REMARKS OF HON. MEMBER FOR LABELLE-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras) has stated that the government is not doing enough for business in this country, and that government policies and programs are confusing businessmen. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That the government refer the subject matter of the hon. member's remarks to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mrs. Jean E. Pigott (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
The government has proclaimed the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program to be universal but in a memorandum to the minister of housing and urban affairs the president of CMHC stated in part:
-neither the industry nor the municipal delivery system nor the present and projected RRAP budget permit the operation of a universal system.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House direct the Minister of State for Urban Affairs to make a statement on motions in order to clarify his so-called universal program, so that cynical observers will not interpret his inadvertent misrepresentation as crass pre-electioneering.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for debate at this time can be done only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?
January 23, 1979


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move a motion under Standing Order 43.
Given the fact that there is a provincial government in Quebec engaged in a semantic campaign to persuade Quebeckers to vote to break away from Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert):
That the Leader of the Opposition and his colleague from Rosedale be asked to refrain from further comment on sovereignty association or any other similar semantic gimmick-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil).


RAILWAYS
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisons of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the serious effect that the recommendations of the Prairie Rail Action Committee will have on many producers and communities on the prairies, and in view of the fact that there is no requirement that the Railway Transport Committee hold public hearings when the railways apply to abandon lines, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton):
That the Minister of Transport direct the Railway Transport Committee to give notice of and hold public hearings in all cases where requests are made by affected municipalities, towns and villages.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be introduced for debate at this time, pursuant to Standing Order 43, only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. The government has announced that it is going to Japan for its sixth foreign borrowing in 14 months to support the Canadian dollar.
I wonder if the Prime Minister can tell the House why, since this device has now failed five times, the government is convinced it is going to work this time.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have announced that we will borrow in the foreign market. I think this has been well received by Canadians. There are enough savings in Canada to meet some of our financial requirements and in order to supplement the flow of capital we have borrowed abroad, as has been the case for many years. We are just following that pattern. We are not the first ones to borrow from Japan; the Americans were there a few months ago.


Charles Joseph Clark: I regret we cannot bring the Prime Minister's attention to economic questions, but perhaps he will attempt to answer this one.
Will the Prime Minister tell the House of Commons why the government in this case is going to Japan with this offer? Will he tell the House whether offers were made in any other country and were turned down; and if his answer to the question has to do with rates of interest, will he tell us whether an offer was made in Switzerland?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have had opportunities to borrow throughout the world and we have decided to borrow on the Japanese market at this time because we believe it is the most favourable market for the conditions we wanted to obtain. And I also want to report to the House and to the Leader of the Opposition that we did have offers from several other banking countries and that Canada's credit is excellent throughout the world.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my next question to the Prime Minister or to his delegate on economic questions.
During the period of these borrowings abroad, designed to prop up the Canadian dollar, the value of the Canadian dollar has dropped by at least six cents. I wonder if the Prime

January 23, 1979
Oral Questions
Minister, the Minister of Finance, the minister responsible for economic policy, or anybody else over there, can tell the Elouse of Commons what projections they have in the government as to what the value of the Canadian dollar would be now had those borrowings not been resorted to?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition would be well advised to delegate somebody else on external affairs policies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I think the question put by the Leader of the Opposition is purely hypothetical. The Canadian dollar is floating in the marketplace. The level of our dollar is established by the marketplace. I think that Canadians have benefited much from the fact that the Canadian dollar is now more competitive, because in 1978 we had a record year in trade and we hope we will keep having the benefits of the devalued dollar in the next few months.


INTEREST RATE POLICY OF GOVERNMENT
James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance.
Given the fact that our unemployment rate is over 8 per cent, our inflation rate is over 8 per cent, and now very reputable forecasters say that the real growth in the economy will be less than 3 per cent, will the government change its high interest rate policy, which everyone says is taking us into a serious recession, reverse itself and move to a low interest rate policy?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the monetary policy is established by the governor of the Bank of Canada. When he raised interest rates, he stated his reasons for doing so in a press release, and I approved his decision. Mr. Speaker, we have taken these measures because Canada is a new country which imports capital from foreign countries, because we have a trade balance problem and we have to import capital. So we must have competitive interest rates.


James McPhail Gillies: Perhaps the Prime Minister would like to delegate responsibility for finance as well.
Is the Minister of Finance seriously suggesting that the governor of the Bank of Canada does not have to consult, and that the Minister of Finance does not have responsibility for the monetary policy of this nation? Is this what he is trying to tell the House? The act is very clear: the Minister of Finance has full responsibility.
I ask him again, given the fact that between 1971 and 1973 the short-term interest rate differential between Canada and the United States was in favour of Canada, and the dollar appreciated, does he know if there are some studies which suggest that the Canadian dollar would have floated substan-

tially differently than it is if we had a low interest policy, which is what this country needs at this time?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I think the hon. member forgot to say to the House that in the summer inflation dropped from 9.8 per cent to 8.4 per cent last month, that a year ago unemployment stood at 8.5 per cent and now it is down to 8.1 per cent, and that despite the highest increase in the participation rate last year in the labour market, we have created 429,000 new jobs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I think that the performance of the Canadian economy in 1978 has been a good one, if you take into account the difficulties which all countries in the world are facing at this time.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance likes to forget that compared to Germany, Japan and Switzerland we have rotten economic performance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James McPhail Gillies: I should like to ask the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member have a supplementary question?


An hon. Member:: Yes, he does.


James McPhail Gillies: My question to the minister is this: given the fact there is great controversy in this country among the economics profession and among the advisers of all governments, will the Minister of Finance arrange for a reference to be made to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, which reference was requested during the Christmas recess?
It is fundamental to the economic prosperity of this nation during the next few years to solve the question of whether we should be following the interest rate policy followed by the govenrnment at the present time and whether it is an appropriate policy. A request was made of the committee chairman and he said that he did not have the terms of reference for it. The terms of reference should be given, so that we can call on the governor of the Bank of Canada and other experts to find out what the policy should be in the country at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I asked the governor of the Bank of Canada to appear before the committee many times last year. When I read the report, I was very impressed by his answers and much less impressed by the quality of the questioning by the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
January 23, 1979


RAILWAYS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister: it is of great concern to western farmers.
In 1974, in the context of an election campaign then ongoing-more precisely, on June 14-the Prime Minister promised western farmers the Government of Canada would not abandon rail service branch lines as long as elevator companies considered that continued rail service was warranted. That was the promise of the Prime Minister.
Considering that last week the Prairie Rail Action Committee report recommended abandonment of 38 sections of rail line, among others-this fits precisely within the framework promised by the Prime Minister in June of 1974-will the Prime Minister assure the House that these lines he committed himself to in 1974 will be preserved in 1979?


Mr. Charles Lapointe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the measures this government has been taking since 1974 to improve the grain transportation system in the west are very important. Just think of the $700 million which will be spent in the next six years to improve the rail system in the west.
As for the PRAC recommendations, Mr. Speaker, a report was published about ten days ago asking in fact for the abandonment of some lines, but it is only a recommendation and it is the responsibility of the Canadian Transport Commission to decide whether those railway lines will be abandoned or not.
'English]


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister: I hope he will answer it. It is not a question which requires detailed knowledge; it simply requires the Prime Minister to reiterate today the commitment he made in 1974.
In 1974, the Prime Minister promised western farmers the government would maintain the 38 lines which were not all concerned with the PRAC recommendation but which fit into his criteria. Will the Prime Minister now reassert that commitment, to ensure that western farmers receive today what was promised then?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party had listened to the answer, he would know and he would not have to repeat the question. The commitment made has been honoured and respected until now.


John George Diefenbaker: Nonsense.


An hon. Member:: It certainly has.
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The right hon. member speaks for himself, but I am talking to the Leader of the New Democratic Party.


John George Diefenbaker: I know, and I speak to you.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think we have the great expert on nonsense talking nonsense at this point.


John George Diefenbaker: It is a complete deception.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I realize you might want to recognize the right hon. member for Prince Albert. I understand this morning he had a tough time with the hon. member for Rosedale, but that is no reason to take it out on me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We have honoured that commitment. Now we have a respectable body which is making a contrary recommendation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The parliamentary secretary is perfectly correct in saying they will be looked at by the CTC and acted upon by it.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the parliamentary secretary with almost as much attention as I listen to the Prime Minister's answers.
The Minister of Transport cannot be here today because of other commitments-and I understand that-but last week he said in Saskatchewan that the PRAC recommendations as a whole would be referred to the CTC for consideration. I ask the Prime Minister whether he would not distinguish between those lines which he said should be preserved and those which are still contentious, and simply refer the seven or eight lines that are outside his commitment to the CTC for consideration. Will the Prime Minister not now commit himself, in 1979, to the western farmers as he did in the context of an election promise in 1974?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we are not changing any policy. I am just saying that the CTC has the right and the duty to pronounce itself upon these recommendations and we will see what its answer is.



WELFARE


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.

January 23, 1979
Oral Questions
Sometime in December, the Canadian parliament passed a bill amending the Family Allowances Act. At the time, the Minister of National Health and Welfare told us that Quebec families would, on the whole, derive greater benefits from family allowances.
I have here a press release issued by the Quebec health minister in which he states that family allowances paid by the federal government will decrease by 22.1 per cent. Here is my question: Before the bill was passed by the Canadian parliament, did the minister have talks with the health minister of Quebec, and the other provinces, naturally, and did they agree with the amendments proposed to the law? Furthermore, is it true that Quebec will receive 22.1 per cent fewer benefits from federal family allowances?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, the provinces were advised of the changes in the family allowances which are of federal jurisdiction by myself as soon as the government took its decision at the end of August. I met Dr. Lazure at the federal-provincial conference held in Toronto, but on the night when I called him on the phone to advise him of the change, he told me that he envied the fact that I was able to get my government to accept the change which he was unable to do with his own government. The January cheque mothers have just received is accompanied by a particularly nasty note saying they are losing money. He forgot to say that a new cheque will be added to the monthly family allowances cheque which does, I admit, give $12 to $15 less for the first child, for instance. However, the new cheque will give an extra $60 million net to Quebec mothers in 1979.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that information.
Could I ask her to issue a release to give more specific details to family allowances recipients since in many cases referred to me people wonder if they have to file a tax return to take advantage of the tax credit even though they do not pay any income tax. It is urgent, in my opinion, that the situation be cleared up so that there be no useless controversy and that Canadian and Quebec families are not made to believe that they will sustain such a large decrease.


Monique Bégin: That is a very good question, Mr. Speaker. I would now like to inform all hon. members in this House that an announcement is being aired over the radio across Canada as well as published in the country's weeklies and ethnic papers, and which will be presented under a different form on television next week, telling mothers: That piece of paper you received with your January cheque, read it, do not throw it away, for that thirteenth cheque is not automatically issued, you have to ask for it and of course it will be paid to most mothers. I will indeed keep on informing hon. members on the program. We also have information kits available to hon. members.
I would also like to add something which I think is pretty important. All local service groups-women resource centres, citizens' groups, poverty groups, native mothers' groups, women's groups-are welcome to apply to the ministry of health and welfare for small amounts of money in the form of contacts for services in order to help canvass neighbourhoods and to help women fill out these forms, if they have never before filled them out.
[ Translation]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: 1 would like to ask a supplementary question. Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if it would be possible to add the following to the information already supplied: that it is essential, according to the law, to file an income tax return in order to be eligible for the tax credit, because people are all mixed up about that. At the same time, they could be told about the date when they can expect their tax credit. Would it be in the middle of the year, at the end of the year, at the beginning of the year or immediately after they have made their request? Of course, if that amount is to be added to their family allowances, they must receive their cheque; but are they going to receive it?


Monique Bégin: Next week, every Canadian mother will receive an income tax return form. All of them, even those who do not usually fill an income tax return, will have to do the following: supply all information relating to their identification and the amount they request, write N/A on every other blank, sign the form and send it to Revenue Canada. Beginning the third week of March, cheques will be sent to families on a first come first served basis at the time of income tax returns.



GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the President of the Treasury Board regarding the government's policy on ex gratia payments which, as he well knows, implies no liability or receipt of value for services but these payments are made on the basis of benevolence or some other consideration.
In view of some very large payments set out in this year's public accounts, has there been a change in policy to justify, for example, a payment of $40,000 to McGregor Travel in Montreal, which was the catalyst in the Estey inquiry into Air Canada, or some $2,300,000 for land expropriation at Mirabel in apparent circumvention of the expropriations act? Could the minister give us the reason, if there is a difference in policy?

	
January 23, 1979


Hon. Judd Buchanan (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the policy still remains as stated by the hon. member, and each individual case is reviewed by the full Treasury Board before a decision is taken.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's answer. Perhaps he would look into two other incidents at his convenience. One is the payment of $87,000 to Olympia and York Developments for guard services at a building here in Ottawa, and the other is the payment of $500,000 to Ste. Marie Air Services for alleged loss of earnings resulting from the opening of Mirabel airport.
It seems to me that the minister should be interested in checking into these matters which contrast strangely with the definition of ex gratia payments and the usual amounts paid under the circumstances.


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to consider the representations of the hon. member and look into these two particular cases.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The minister has reneged on her promise to meet with the maritime chiefs and has decided to meet with the National Indian Brotherhood and one representative from each province. The fact remains that the very particular problems which the maritimes have still remain unresolved.
Can the minister tell the House if she will meet with the maritime chiefs, who have come to Ottawa again, in the hope that she will not insult them again and that this time she will sit down with them-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul Yewchuk: -to discuss the very serious concerns they have with regard to health care for their people in the maritime provinces?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about the quality of assistance given to Indians in our country, as I am sure all members are.
I do not think that I have ever insulted the maritime chiefs. I told them at the end of the parliamentary meeting before Christmas here in Ottawa that the next time I had occasion to go to the maritimes I would meet with them. I made this suggestion in order to save them the cost of transportation. I will be holding conferences in Moncton, Sydney and Charlottetown only on February 8 and 9.
Oral Questions
I was very concerned when I heard the report by the CBC and also the questions by the hon. gentleman to the effect that there were deaths caused by the policy of my department. I immediately sent a telex inviting the people concerned from across the country, because it is a problem throughout Canada and not just in the maritimes. The meeting will be tomorrow afternoon. I think it is more important to have this meeting and avert any misunderstanding now, rather than waiting two more weeks when I will be visiting the maritimes. I am sure the hon. member will understand this.
Of course the maritime chiefs will be invited. The National Indian Brotherhood is the body which is organizing the meeting. I do not know exactly who will be present, but the door is open.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, in view of the widespread opposition to the minister's new policy of cutbacks in Indian health services which was imposed without prior consultation with the people involved, would the minister agree to postpone this policy for six months in order that she may consult with the Indian people fully before she makes a final decision on the implementation of this inhuman policy?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member should swallow the words "inhuman policy", because as far as I am concerned he is in the potatoes.
We are talking about guidelines, which means the rules of the game, to determine what can be spent, for what reason, and for whom. We will be using public funds and we would like the money from these expenditures to go to Indians who need it. The hon. member should know very well what we are talking about.
Further to my telex, no cases of abuse have been reported to me. At the meeting tomorrow I will ask the various leaders if they know of any cases of abuse, because I would like to look into each matter personally.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the importance of the textile industry for all of Canada and specifically for the province of Quebec, I would like to know why he stated, while he was abroad, that all textile plants here in Canada should be closed and the production of textiles left to countries where labour is cheaper?

January 23, 1979
Oral Questions


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Small Business)):: Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member's information came from a distorted press resume.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: I simply stated at the press conference that we had over 200,000 people employed in the textile industry and that there was no way in which we could have over 65 per cent of our imports coming from abroad, and increase that amount, without jeopardizing the industry.
Having made that point, I said that academically it could be conceived that perhaps other people could produce textiles for the Canadian consumer cheaper than we could. I went on to say that this was unacceptable to us, but unfortunately the only part of my comments which was reported, that I saw, in this context was that I had suggested that perhaps our textile business should be shut down.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, the minister is correctly quoted as saying "and we should leave the field to others who can produce the commodity more cheaply". Does the minister feel that if other countries can produce the product more cheaply than Canada, we should shut down all our industries?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, that is not my position at all. I tried to explain in the first answer that I proposed it as hypothetically possible that people could argue that those nations producing such products more cheaply, should do so and let us produce something else. I went on to emphasize that this was not our policy and that it would not be our policy.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Since the minister has repeatedly stated in the House that the textile industry was doing well in Canada, and since he agrees with the Minister of National Revenue's statement abroad that the production of textiles should be left to other countries where labour is cheaper and that Canadian plants should be closed, what does this all mean?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the Minister of National Revenue made a statement to that effect. What he said, rather, and which is also extremely important, was that developed countries must allow developing countries, whenever possible, to expand in such areas. Our policy in Canada is to allow the import of certain quantities of commodities made in developing countries, while keeping a share of the market for our own producers. To my mind, this is not an overly restrictive policy, as it protects Canadian producers while keeping a good share of the market for products made in developing countries.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration and concerns the overpayments made to 6,000 unemployed in the province of Quebec because of an administrative error and a false interpretation of section 37 of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Is the minister willing to cancel the claim he sent to at least 15,000 Canadians, including 6,000 Quebeckers?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: No, Mr. Speaker. We had indicated that there was an overpayment as a result of an error. We are contacting each individual person who received the overpayment. We are looking at each case sympathetically to ascertain those that we can write off or abandon.
We are also indicating in other areas that the collection procedure will be dealt with as sympathetically as possible. I do not think we have authority under the legislation simply to write off an overpayment of that size.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs? An hour or so ago the Consumers Association of Canada sent a letter to the Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs saying that the 3 per cent manufacturing sales tax cut announced in the last budget had not been passed on to consumers. Indeed, some consumer prices went up by 1.9 per cent in December, compared with November.
Can the minister tell the House why the cut in sales tax was not properly monitored by the government? What steps is the government now planning to take to make sure that the $1 billion cut is not being kept by the corporations as a gift, but is passed on to the consumers where it belongs?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the many offices of my department across the country have been monitoring the sales tax cut, and I must say that since its introduction we have received very few complaints that it was not being passed on, although this would only begin to show up in recent weeks. We have been monitoring, however. I have not yet received the letter referred to by the hon. member, but I shall be glad to pursue the matter.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. This morning, the Consumers Association of Canada said that in
January 23, 1979

their phone calls to the agencies referred to, they found that no one was really charged with monitoring the sales tax cut and no one seemed to know what they were doing.
Will the minister make a commitment to assign a single agency to monitor the 3 per cent cut so that consumers will get the $1 billion, and not the corporations?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, that is difficult to understand. Before Christmas, I met with the entire executive of the Consumers Association of Canada and told them exactly what the government had in mind. That was the announcement by the Minister of Finance on budget night to the effect that until the end of the year the AIB, my department and CSIP would be involved in the monitoring process. I told them exactly what the role of my department would be; that is, with our many offices across the country, to keep a close watch on consumer products in the field to determine whether tax cuts were being passed on. Up until this time there have not been many complaints.
It is difficult to determine, especially with small products where the price is low-although we know that with automobiles it was passed on-with things such as appliances whether this is so. But the monitoring is continuing.



FINANCE


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Finance? On December 13, in response to my questions regarding proposed changes to the small business tax rate, the minister said that he would be introducing a bill on the matter "within the next few days."
My question is simply this: why has the minister reneged on that promise, and when can we expect this bill to be tabled in order that, as his colleague, the hon. member for Labelle, stated earlier the confusion and uncertainty which the Minister has created can be somewhat resolved?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have introduced a Ways and Means motion which includes everything that is in the bill. That is what I meant when I referred to the introduction of the bill, so that it would be possible for me to receive comments from people who have an interest in it. Most of the people who have an interest have looked into it and we have received some letters from them. If some changes are to be proposed, they will be in the bill when I introduce it soon.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Neither the minister's ways and means motion nor his press release on the matter, issued in December, assure the thousands and thousands of legitimate one-man operations, as well as independent insurance and real estate brokers, that they will be exempt from the proposed amendments.
Oral Questions
In order to clarify the obvious uncertainty and confusion within this widespread sector of our economy, can the minister today give these legitimate small business operations, including real estate brokers and insurance brokers, the assurance that they will continue to qualify for the preferential small business tax?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would read the ways and means motion and the press release that went with it, he would see it is clear that the people referred to will be exempt as long as they meet the requirements. It was all spelled out very clearly in the ways and means motion. I think either the hon. member did not read it or that he is acting in bad faith.



STATUS OF WOMEN


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister: it relates to the recent meeting of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, a body appointed by the government.
In view of the remarks made at that meeting by the president, who stated that she had come to the "tragic conclusion that not only were Canadian women being excluded from the employment strategy of the Canadian government," but that in "official statements" women are considered either "responsible for the high rate of unemployment" or are being "used as scapegoats and as a screen for a chronic inability to redress the economy", and in view of this level of criticism directed toward the government and its over-all economic policy of using women as scapegoats, has the Prime Minister asked for an immediate report from either the minister responsible for the status of women or from the Minister of Employment and Immigration about steps being taken to reverse this very serious situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have had a report and I can state unequivocally that either the president was not directing her remarks at the government or else she was unequivocally wrong.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that these remarks were released officially by the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, and that there has been no public statement since suggesting that the remarks, which are very clearly an indication of criticism of the government, were not meant or intended, when the Prime Minister is inquiring about this, could he perhaps also find out why it has taken so long for the commitment to be honoured-made by the President of the Treasury Board and by the minister responsible for the status of women-to produce the annual reports on the achievement of equal opportunities for women in the various departments of government, as well as publishing the reports on the plan of action to which the government has committed itself?

January 23, 1979
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not have to make the inquiries: I can assure the hon. member that neither he nor the honourable lady can find any incidents in which any minister of this government will have taken the position stated by the president of the Voice of Women.



GAMBLING


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
On December 19 last, unequivocally, without condition and without restriction, the minister stated very clearly that before January 22 he would indicate whether the government was going to continue its policy on off-track betting, or change that policy. It is now January 23. I would ask the minister why he has reneged on that public promise.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, just before coming into the House today 1 made a statement concerning off-track betting. I thought there were many unanswered questions on both sides of this problem. The great municipal body of the city of Toronto passed a resolution condemning off-track betting, and I thought even that great body would like to come before some committee. I therefore suggested to the leader of the Senate that a committee be formed, and he has assured me he will consider that suggestion. Such a committee could hear all the pros and cons and all the facts. Even the provinces which have been very quiet on this question could come forward and let their thoughts be known.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. On December 19, the minister was surely aware that his cabinet colleagues were divided on this matter-surely the minister was aware that the Liberal caucus was divided-yet he blundered on and made a very forthright statement.
My question is: why did the minister make that statement on December 19, knowing that he would not live up to it?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I feel I did live up to it. Furthermore, the hon. member surely knows that in his own caucus there are pros and cons. He has not stated whether he is for it or against it, and I should like to know that. It would even help the committee, if it is formed, to have his learned opinion on whether off-track betting should become law. I have not received a letter from him either for or against it.



THE CONSTITUTION


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received official representations from the opposition regarding the negotiating position it would recommend for the conference on constitutional reform next week?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no recollection of having received any such representations from the opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Provencher.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I did not mean to interrupt the Prime Minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I had finished, but hearing the laughter on the other side I can understand why there is no position of the opposition on this question. There are three: there is one from Rosedale, one from Prince Albert, and one from the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to direct my question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The minister will recall that in recent days he has made statements that he would be willing to accept additional refugees from the Philippines and Hong Kong if those two countries would allow the boat people to land there.
Is the minister now willing to increase the number of refugees, the roughly 5,000 he is contemplating landing in 1979 out of a total commitment of landings of 100,000? Is he willing to increase the number at least to the exemplary proportion of the State of Israel which has remembered the plight of their citizens after World War II? Many of us in this country remember the plight of our forefathers. Is the minister willing to increase the number of total landings for 1979 above the 5,000 he has recommended?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, to the credit of Canada, we were able to announce-I think with the approval of Canadian citizens generally-that we have moved from 75 families a month to 200. That raised the figure to 5,000. The announcement was made in December.
January 23, 1979

In addition, I have sent a telex to my provincial colleagues who have special responsibilities for immigration, recommending that we have a meeting to discuss this matter and come up with a figure that would be an annual target, so to speak, of the number of people we might anticipate receiving under the refugee program. As a result of the action taken by this government, people on the ship in Hong Kong were able to get off and we are taking people from that particular camp. We have not yet had a response from the Philippines. We indicated we are prepared to take from the camp 300, 400 or 500 from that group in order to help alleviate the situation.
I say again that this is really a world problem. We must have some direction from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees so that we do not have to act on an ad hoc basis and so that we do not act in a counterproductive way in respect of those countries which are countries of first haven and have a problem on their doorstep which they face on an almost daily basis.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate to the minister that at no time have spokesmen who have spoken on this issue ever suggested that the number of refugees that Canada would be willing or able to take would in any way solve the tragic situation in Southeast Asia. The United Nations has clearly indicated that there could be as many as half a million refugees there by the end of this year.
Is the minister willing to now move forward under a section of the Immigration Act and allow churches and similar sponsoring institutions which have indicated their willingness to sponsor Southeast Asian refugees to sponsor these refugees in addition to the number of refugees to which Canada is committed?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, not only are we prepared to move ahead, but we have already moved ahead. We are contacting church groups and service clubs. Within two days of an address I made in Ottawa, we were contacted by the Kinsmen Club of Canada which indicated they were having a meeting of their top executives from across the country and that they were very interested in this sponsorship approach. They know that it will not be in lieu of, but in addition to, the government's commitment.
I expect that from the churches, service clubs and other groups we may very well get a significant number of refugees into this country in addition to the governments' commitment, both provincial and federal.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. In light of the report on an
Oral Questions
inquiry which had been ordered and justified concerning the students of the Cornwall institute studying to be air controllers, the minister having recognized that there had been some involuntary discrimination, and following the recommendation of the Commissioner of Official Languages to the effect that within six months those courses will be given in French, could the parliamentary secretary assure us now that the deadline recommended by the Commissioner of Official Languages will be respected?


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Transport will do everything possible to respect the deadline recommended by the Commissioner of Official Languages. It has been recognized that involuntary discrimination had taken place. There are now French-speaking teachers at the institute. The students, at least those who have been interviewed during a CBC program two weeks ago, have said they were satisfied with the changes in the situation. We hope to be able to offer all courses in both official languages before the end of 1980, which is, I think, one of the deadlines established by the Commissioner of Official Languages.

{English}



STATUS OF WOMEN


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I listened carefully to the Prime Minister's reply to the hon. member for Egmont, but the press report clearly states that the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, through its president, Yvette Rousseau, took the stand that the government has been callously ignoring its recommendations in a number of particulars that are set out in the report.
May I ask the Prime Minister what the government intends to do about two, in particular, of the complaints made by the Advisory Council on the Status of Women? One is that only 20 of 51 federal departments have full-time co-ordinators concerned with equal opportunities for women. The other is that the number of women participants in high status career assignment programs has dropped from 30 per cent in 1975 to 14 per cent at the present time. Will the government take steps to meet these two specific complaints of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister responsible for the status of women has taken account of this report. We will discuss it in cabinet and take whatever action is needed. In my answer to the hon. member for Egmont, I was singling out a particular point quoted by him to the effect that in some way the government was blaming women for the increase in the size of the unemployment figures. I said that is categorically false.
80047 13

January 23, 1979
Oral Questions URBAN AFFAIRS



COMPENSATION TO AHOP RESIDENTS IN VIRGINIA PARK, ST. JOHN'S, NEWFOUNDLAND

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Public Works responsible for housing. I wish to ask the minister if CMHC is prepared to offer to the homeowners in the Virginia Park, AHOP subdivision in St. John's a settlement in order that they may be able to effect repairs to their homes arising out of inadequate inspection, faulty building materials and substandard materials, which has seriously depreciated the value of their houses.
Is the minister prepared to make an offer on behalf of CMHC to these unfortunate people, other than the offer made to them on January 8 in writing by CMHC offering to give them a loan which would be added to their mortgage?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am glad the hon. member has asked that question. Indeed, the offer made by CMHC to the lawyer representing some of the people affected in the Virginia Park project in St. John's, Newfoundland, has not, I understand, been fully communicated to the people concerned.
The offer does not only include an increase in the loan, but the possibility of subsidies attached to this offer of an extra loan in order to allow people to make urgent repairs to their homes. Discussions are going on at the present time between the CMHC regional director and the lawyer representing some of the owners, but I should like the people concerned to look fully at the advantages which are offered, because CMHC is going beyond normal practice in trying to accommodate them and help them solve their problems.


James Aloysius McGrath: The offer of CMHC has, of course, the advantage of increasing the value of a house which has, in fact, depreciated. I would ask the minister whether the investigations of the RCMP into alleged wrongdoing, alleged pay-offs to inspectors by the contractors, have been concluded and whether charges will be laid.


André Ouellet: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. When the investigations are completed, it will be up to officers of the RCMP to convey their conclusions to the appropriate authority; but I have no indication that their inquiries have been concluded. In the meantime, the people concerned have been deflected to other tasks and we are awaiting the results of the investigations.



STATUS OF WOMEN


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to direct a question to the government House leader following the extraordinary statement made by the Prime Minister with regard to the president of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women. I should like to ask him whether he would arrange with his cabinet colleagues that the recent reports of the advisory council be referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration so that we can hear Madame Rousseau's side of the question and her statements which the Prime Minister dismissed so cavalierly.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I was looking in the hon. member's direction in anticipation of a question supplementary to that put by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, but she did not get up then and I do not think I can allow her to put her question now.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, i should like to table, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), copies of correspondence in both official languages between myself and the then Governor General designate, Mr. Edward Schreyer, concerning pension provisions for him at the time of his retirement as Governor General.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, since we are answering more than a hundred questions today, I seek permission to table the list of numbers in order to spare the House a long and useless enumeration.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Mr. Paproski:: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.
January 23, 1979

[Editor's note : Questions to be answered are as follows: 2, 22, 157, 161, 177, 218, 219, 233, 244, 287, 296, 334, 344, 349, 384,	393,	398,	399,	400,	407,	425,	433,	444,	465,	473,	475,477,	512,	515,	518,	519,	524,	541,	544,	545,	546,	551,	555,558,	559,	562,	577,	578,	579,	584,	585,	624,	635,	636,	637,640,	641,	643, to 647 incl., 650, 684, 685, 687,	727,	733,	737,
741, 750 to 774 incl., 788, 824, 866 and 867.]


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the Department of Agriculture's Dairy Programme announcement made on April 4, 1977, did the announcement include a statement that the government would spend $4,000,000 this year for market promotion and research and, if so, what has been spent to date, in what manner and if a balance remains, how will it be spent and on what date?


Eugene Whelan: Yes, the announcement of the dairy program on April 4, 1977, included a statement that the government would spend $4 million for market promotion and research in 1977-78.
As at March 31st, 1978, a total of $2,956,228.54 was spent in the following manner and the balance of the unexpended moneys lapsed at the end of the fiscal year 1977-78:
Product promotion	$ 2,379,000.00
Market Research	316,502.41
Product Research	260,726.13
For the fiscal year 1978-79 a total of $4 million has been allocated for market promotion and research.
As of November 20, 1978, a total of $692,720.00 has been spent in the following manner:
Product promotion	$ 371,114.00
Product Research	321,606.00
Market Research	0
The balance of funds are committed to the full amount and are expected to be spent within the fiscal year.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did Mr. Robin Bourne, Director of the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group, Department of the Solicitor General, appear on the program "Code Blue" telecast by CTV a few months ago and did he state that a terrorist incident was inevitable in Quebec and, if so, does this statement reflect the opinion of the government?
2.	Did Mr. Bourne appear on the program with permission of any superior and, if so, what is the name and job designation of the superior?
3.	Is the government aware that the program "Code Blue" carried in places items similar to those included in a column in the Toronto Sun by Mr. Peter Worthington on the subject of national security?
4.	For what reason was the Publisher of the Toronto Sun, Mr. David Creighton, and the Editor, Mr. Peter Worthington charged under the Official Secrets Ad)
5.	Does the government intend to lay charges under the Official Secrets Act in respect of the program "Code Blue" and, if not, for what reason?


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by the Ministry of the Solicitor General and the Department of Justice as follows:
Order Paper Questions
1.	Mr. Bourne had the Solicitor General's permission to grant an interview to CTV about crisis management. CTV decided to include film clips from this interview on the program "Code Blue". Mr. Bourne did not state that a terrorist incident was inevitable in Quebec.
2.	See part 1.
3.	Yes.
4 and 5. It would be improper for the Minister of Justice to comment on the case that is now before the courts with regard to the Toronto Sun.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	To the knowledge of the government, did Mr. Tom Rusekski of Ottawa appear before the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission on or about Tuesday, October 10, 1978 and, if so (a) was one of the subjects dealt with the alleged censorship of Radio Canada International by the government (b) is Mr. Rusekski a former employee of the CBC and, if so, what position did he hold and during what time and did he allege that he was illegally dismissed a few days after filing a brief of complaints with the CRTC (c) did Mr. Rusekski charge that a "cover-up" operation was conducted after the honourable member for Leeds asked questions in the House of Commons about alleged censorship of Radio Canada International broadcasts beamed to the Soviet Union?
2.	Did Mr. Rusekski state that Mr. Alan Brown, Director of Radio Canada International, said that questions by the honourable member for Leeds in the House of Commons lead to high level meetings with the Minister of External Affairs, the Secretary of State, the President of the CBC and other officials and further, did he quote Mr. Brown to the effect that they were "all talking about these bloody questions and what should be done about them"?
3.	On what date, in what places, by what means and at what times did any conference or communications of any kind take place on the subject of the questions by the honourable member for Leeds by any of the following (a) the Minister of External Affairs (b) the Secretary of State (c) CBC President Mr. A1 Johnson (d) any other officials and the names and job designations of such other officials?
4.	Did the CBC legal staff try to stop Mr. Rusekski from giving testimony before the CRTC on alleged censorship of Radio Canada International and, if so
(a)	was such an attempt made by CBC lawyer Mr. David Chatia and what are all the reasons that the CBC attempted to stop such testimony (b) is it part of any CBC or government policy to institute additional censorship or does either have a policy to silence former and present employees?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
Mr. Tom Rusekski appeared before the Canadian RadioTelevision and Telecommunications Commission on Tuesday, October 10, 1978. The proceedings of the CRTC of that date are a matter of public records. Mr. Rusekski is also suing the CBC in connection with his dismissal by the corporation. Until such time as the CRTC has concluded its deliberations on the representations made to it by him, and the legal action has been concluded, it would be improper for the CBC to comment on or discuss these matters.
80047-131/,

January 23, 1979
Order Paper Questions AIR SERVICE


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Is the government committed to allowing (a) Canadian Pacific Airlines (b) any other airline except Air Canada rights to servicing Saskatoon and Regina for domestic and/or international flights?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: (a) The government agreed in 1977 that CP Air be allowed to serve points in Saskatchewan on domestic flights, subject to licence authority being granted by the Canadian Transport Commission.
(b) Transair was granted licence authority to serve Saskatoon and Regina by the Canadian Transport Commission in April 1978. Norcanair has authority to serve Saskatoon-Regina-Minot, North Dakota. (Air Canada is designated to serve Regina/Winnipeg-Chicago.)


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 772 of the Third Session of the 30th Parliament, on the subject of Leslie James Bennett, formerly Assistant Officer in Charge of Counter Espionage for the RCMP, which stated in part: "Prior to his retirement to medical pension, Mr. Bennett was questioned by the RCMP in line with the normal concerns by all Western Intelligence Services in accepting the possibility of high level penetration by Soviet Intelligence Services", what are all the reasons in the case of Mr. Bennett that the government considered such a thing a "possibility"?
2.	What are the names of all other senior RCMP personnel in the past five years who have retired from the RCMP and have been similarly questioned or debriefed and what is the total number of such persons?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: 1 and 2. The original reply is self explanatory and no explanation is to be made.


Mr. Jones: 1.	How many cases of malaria have been recorded in Canada each year since 1972? Have any deaths occurred from these cases?
2.	In how many cases where malaria was diagnosed was the party a recent immigrant (within two years) to Canada?
3.	Does diagnosis of this disease require notification of public health officials? Is the patient quarantined? What efforts are made to restrict the disease to the first diagnosed individual?
4.	Are individuals such as hospital workers, laboratory technicians and transportation employees immunized against malaria? Is this immunization done on a regular schedule?
5.	Are there any environmental factors which have an influence on the spread of malaria? What efforts are being made to correct these environmental factors in order to limit the outbreaks of malaria? Is there any research currently being conducted on malaria and its causes?


Monique Bégin: In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned:
1.	The number of cases of malaria reported in Canada since 1972 has been as follows:
1972,	7
1973,	25
1974,	24

1975,	52
1976,	91
1977,	96
1978,	143 (to October 7).
One death was reported in Ontario due to malaria in 1971.
2.	The exact number of malaria cases occurring among recent immigrants is not known. Recent information provided by the Quebec ministry of social affairs indicates that 7 of the 13 cases reported in 1977 in Quebec were immigrants. The remainder were Canadians who acquired the infection while travelling in tropical countries.
3.	Notification of selected communicable diseases is a requirement under provincial health regulations and malaria is included. No quarantine measures are necessary since the disease is not spread directly from person to person. Species of mosquito necessary for transmission do not naturally occur in Canada.
4.	No vaccine exists for protection against malaria although current research gives hope that one may be developed in the near future. However, effective drugs are available for both prevention and treatment. Travellers proceeding to malarious areas of the world should start prophylactic drugs two weeks before departure and continue until six weeks have elapsed after returning to Canada.
5.	Malaria is found mainly in tropical and sub-tropical countries and environmental factors are extremely important in the maintenance of this disease. Malaria is transmitted by certain species of mosquito hence moist, warm, climates are necessary for propagation of the insect vectors.
Efforts to maintain residual pesticide spraying to kill adult and larval stages of the mosquito are supported by the World Health Organization. A new program by WHO has recently been launched which will direct additional resources toward research on all aspects of control.


Mr. Jones: 1.	Is human quarantine inspection a federal or provincial responsibility? Under whose departmental jurisdiction does quarantine fall?
2.	What are the diseases which are subject to quarantine? How long are quarantine periods for each disease?
3.	Are all travellers to Canada, regardless of their country of origin, subject to health standards and if not, what countries are exempt? What provisions have been made to insure that travellers from countries not subject to health inspections do not import contagious and/or communicable diseases into Canada?


Monique Bégin: In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned:
1.	Human quarantine inspection, when applied at a port of entry, is a federal responsibility.
The Quarantine Act R.S., c. 33 (1st Supp.) empowers a federal quarantine officer to board and inspect any conveyance arriving in Canada from a place outside Canada.
January 23, 1979

The collector of customs at any harbour, airport or port of entry into Canada at which a quarantine station has not been established may exercise the detention powers of a quarantine officer until opportunity has been afforded to arrange for examination of a person or persons by a quarantine officer.
The federal quarantine activity is administered by medical services branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
2.	Diseases subject to federal quarantine control are: i. Those named in the schedule to the Quarantine Act, viz. cholera; plague; smallpox; yellow fever; ii. Unspecified contagious diseases of epidemic propensity, the introduction of which into Canada would, in the opinion of the quarantine officer, constitute a grave danger to public health in Canada.
The quarantine (incubation) periods established for the purposes of the International Health Regulations for each disease are: cholera, five days; plague, six days; smallpox, 14 days; yellow fever, six days.
Incubation periods formerly established under the International Sanitary Regulations (the forerunner of the International Health Regulations) for the following pestilential diseases are: louse-borne typhus, 14 days; louse-borne relapsing fever; eight days.
For administrative purposes, the following incubation period for certain viral haemorrhagic fevers appears to find international acceptance: Lassa fever, 21 days; Marburg virus disease, 21 days.
3.	All persons arriving in Canada from a place outside Canada, irrespective of origination or diplomatic status, are subject to quarantine health standards.
A requirement by Canada for health inspection of all prospective travellers at foreign departure points would be unenforceable. Any such requirement would be in contravention of article 88 of the International Health Regulations which provide that no health certificate may be required from persons on an international voyage. Provision of health documentation in the case of immigrants or those intending to reside in Canada for a protracted period (such as students) is to be viewed as a condition of the granting of a visa, rather than permissible as a required travel document on arrival.
Article 31 of the International Health Regulations stipulates that the health authority for a port or an airport or for the area in which a frontier post is situated shall take all practicable measures to prevent the departure of any infected person or suspect. The regulatory vehicle for this international cooperation in health protection dates back to 1851 and since 1969 has appeared in the form of International Health Regulations, developed and amended from time to time in response to changing circumstances by the World Health Assembly of the World Health Organization.
Almost all countries of the world are signatories to the International Health Regulations; those few that are not bound, e.g. Australia, South Africa, Singapore, in practice have consistently acted in the spirit of international cooperation set out in article 31.
Order Paper Questions BANK OF CANADA


Mr. Howie: For the fiscal year ended March 31, 1978, what amount was spent on interior landscaping by the Bank of Canada?


Alan Gray Martin: In so far as the Minister of Finance is concerned: I am informed by the Bank of Canada as follows: $7,637.00.


Mr. Epp: Was Mr. Robert Rempel appointed to a government position and, if so, what is (a) his annual salary (b) the job description of his position?


John (Moody) Roberts: In so far as the Public Service is concerned: no.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Has it become the policy of the government or is it under consideration by the government, to establish a security service to be operated completely separate from the RCMP and, if so, what are all the reasons for such a decision or possible consideration?
2.	Does the government plan to expand the Police and Security Planning and Analysis Group and, if so, for what reason?
3.	Is it government policy that a security service separate from the RCMP would be under stronger political control than the present security service and, if so, what are all the reasons that the government is thinking in such a direction?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: 1 and 3. The McDonald commission of inquiry has been asked to look into these questions.
2.	The capability to formulate police and security policy will be increased by three person years. These person years are being found within the secretariat of the Ministry of the Solicitor General.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the Prime Minister or the government aware that the Brockville Aquatic Club is seeking federal funds for the purpose of constructing a swimming pool?
2.	Is the government aware that the Brockville Aquatic Club has presently no such facility and must travel to the nearest pool which is located in Ogdensburg, U.S.A?
3.	Will the Prime Minister and the government adopt a policy of releasing the names and addresses of all donors to the swimming pool at the Prime Minister's official residence, 24 Sussex Drive, Ottawa and, if so, specifically will a copy of such a list be sent to the Brockville Aquatic Club for possible solicitations?
4.	Is the Prime Minister and the government presently considering a policy of making the swimming pool at the Prime Minister's official residence, 24 Sussex Drive, Ottawa, available for use by such groups as the Brockville Aquatic Club when not otherwise occupied?


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by the Ministry of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport and the Prime Minister's office as follows:

January 23, 1979
Order Paper Questions
1.	The Fitness and Amateur Sport Branch has no record of any request for financial assistance from the Brockville Aquatic Club.
2.	There is no provision in the branch program for the construction of local sport facilities of this nature. Municipal and regional levels of government are normally responsible for determining and meeting local facility requirements.
3 and 4. See reply to question No. 1,233 of the first session of the thirtieth parliament, Hansard No. 193, page 8611, dated October 28, 1975.
Contract
Awarded to	Purpose of Contract
(b) for the examination or internal operation of PWC
Robert J. Beck and The development of a model and Pierre Teasdale methods for the analysis of
psychological, social and functional domain attributes and indicators from the perspective of various key user groups in the context of government, office building design in connection with the development of a performance evaluation matrix.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	For the fiscal year 1976-77, what contracts for professional services were let for studies, surveys and analyses into (a) present or future policies, programmes or information analysis and their efficiency and effectiveness (b) the examination of the administration or internal operation of the Department of Public Works?
2.	How much was committed on each contract and to whom?
McEwan, Ghal & Assoc.
I.B.I. Group


André Ouellet: 1 and 2. Public Works Canada awarded contracts for professional services for studies, surveys and analyses during the fiscal year 1976-77 as follows:
(a) for present or future programs, etc.
L*uoe, uanoios & Assoc.
J. Benoit & Assoc.
Contract Awarded to
Benjamin Higgins
Hanscombe Ray Assoc.
Able Administration
The Probe Group
I.B.I. Group
Beauchemin,
Beaton,
Lapointe/Somer
Purpose of Contract
To develop an analytical framework for the purpose of analyzing the impact of shifts in public works expenditures under varying policies of stabilization in the construction industry; and to provide advice and a selective approach to a program of research on literature and studies related to construction instability, in connection with the cost-effectiveness analysis of a proposed information system on construction investment in Canada.
Study to investigate the possible use of bills of quantities in federal construction projects.
Policy analysis, research and advice in connection with government business.
Consultant services in respect of the design and implementation of a managerial and supervisory program for Public Works Canada with the objective of improving the quality of management and supervision in the department.
For the purpose of studying the rental structure as it applies to residences in the expropriated area in Mirabel with a view to the establishment of rentals which will be in line with the surrounding districts.
To study the type and quality of municipal and school services being provided by La Ville de Mirabel and surrounding municipalities in relation to the tax assessment of the federal government.
Amount
Committed


[Stage Direction]
I.B.I. Group
I.B.I. Group
I.B.I. Group
Nepean
Development
Consultants
[Stage Direction]
Carleton University
To undertake a cost study of direct digital control systems for three typical buildings selected by the departmental representative.
Preparation of documents outlining status of the fundamentals of administration at Mirabel on the subject of:
-Role of administration at Mirabel -Elements of an operational strategy -Policies and desirable programs of the department in different activity sectors: agriculture, forestry, recreational, conservation of heritage, realty management.
Definement of methodology of estimating agricultural productivity.
Review and evaluate the effectiveness of present departmental insurance practices and procedures; to make recommendations in written form.
To develop the work plan required to accomplish a systematic review of the activities of Public Works Canada and projection of the D and C branch resources required.
To assist Public Works Canada in the application of the methodology described in the work plan proposed by the I.B.I. Group in their report dated July 9, 1976 in order to establish the optimum use of resources of the D and C branch for the next Fiscal year.
To devise a manpower planning system and to assist with a staff redeployment program.
To prepare a draft "Policy Manual" and a system for updating and refining of "Program Policy Documents"; evaluation of program services and delivery procedures to identify areas for improved operations dealing with the public.
To define functions, tasks, interfaces and specific implementation tasks associated with the building. Specialist resources directorate, newly identified by the Public Works Executive Committee.
To define the functions, tasks and interfaces of a new building specialist resources unit for the design and construction head, building operation; to design its organization and define the' manpower requirements procedures, mode of operation, etc.; to assist with
Amount
Committed
[Stage Direction]
[Mr. Pinard.J
January 23, 1979
[Stage Direction]
Contract Awarded to
Amount
Purpose of Contract	Committed
the recruitment of staff for the unit and
assist them in implementing it; to advise
the ADM, D and C on matters arising
out of the reports and works of the D
and C task force.
Mr. Bawden: 1.	What is the average number of credit notes that the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation (a) issues (b) refuses to issue, in a year?
2.	What has happened to files established by the Marketing and Sales Group of the Corporation identifying the number of complaints from customers?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1.
(a)	and (b) Our records are not kept in such a manner as to provide this information.
2. As per Public Archives' recommendations in their study of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation's filing system, central registry is responsible for opening and retaining files. All head office divisions including the marketing and sales group forward all files and documentation to the central registry for retention and eventual disposal according to the disposal schedule of the Government of Canada.


Mr. Bawden: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,331 of the Third Session of the 30th Parliament, for what reason was the merchandise sold to Sedburgh School on March 17, 1977 not inspected by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation prior to the sale, since the Corporation's manual requires such inspection?
2.	On what date was a refund made to Sedburgh School for the missing diesel engine?
3.	If the Corporation was not advised by the purchaser, that upon collection the diesel engine was missing, for what reason was the refund made?
4.	Was the refund made in April 1977 when it was authorized in writing by the Corporation in that month and, if not, for what reason?


Pierre De Bané: 1.
According to a Crown Assets Disposal Corporation procedure, inspection of surplus materials prior to offering for sales is not mandatory.
2.	Refund approved and cheque issued on February 28, 1978.
3.	Material was left with custodian department for pick up by Sedburgh school; however, they refused to accept material due to its condition. A written complaint was received by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, from Sedburgh school, in October 1977.
4.	Preliminary verbal discussions had taken place between Sedburgh school and our sale's division and upon official receipt of the complaint in October, 1977, an investigation was conducted by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation with the custodian department, and as a result the refund was approved.


Mr. Epp: 1.	Were persons from the Pauingassi Indian Reserve tested for methylmercury and, if so, how many and on what dates?
Order Paper Questions
2.	Was testing done on persons living on the Reserve prior to 1977 and, if so, what were the results in (a) 1970 (b) 1971 (c) 1972 (d) 1973 (e) 1974 (f) 1975 (g) 1976?
3.	Has action been taken on behalf of the persons who have been living with unacceptable levels and, if so, in what way?


Monique Bégin: In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned:
1. Yes.
Date
16/01/74
24/06/76
16/09/76
21/10/76
30/06/77
02/07/77
24/05/78
Number of People 19 15 10 2 1 1 3
51 tests
Thirteen individuals have been tested on more than one
occasion.
2. (a) No testing.
(b)	No testing.
(c)	No testing.
(d)	No testing.
(e)	A total of 19 tests were performed in 1974, the results are as follows:
1- 6 ppb Mercury in blood 1-10 ppb Mercury in blood 1-14 ppb Mercury in blood 1-22 ppb Mercury in blood 1-24 ppb Mercury in blood 1-35 ppb Mercury in blood 1-36 ppb Mercury in blood
1-	37 ppb Mercury in blood (0 No testing.
(g) A total of 27 tests were performed in
2-	5 ppb Mercury in blood 1- 8 ppb Mercury in blood 1-10 ppb Mercury in blood
1-	12 ppb Mercury in blood
2-	16 ppb Mercury in blood 1-18 ppb Mercury in blood
1-	25 ppb Mercury in blood
2-	26 ppb Mercury in blood 1-27 ppb Mercury in blood 1-29 ppb Mercury in blood 1-30 ppb Mercury in blood (* ppb-parts per billion)
3- 40 ppb Mercury 1- 42 ppb Mercury 1- 45 ppb Mercury
1-	48 ppb Mercury
2-	50 ppb Mercury 1- 57 ppb Mercury 1-123 ppb Mercury 1-151 ppb Mercury
in blood in blood in blood in blood in blood in blood in blood in blood
1976, the results are as follows:
1- 31 ppb 1- 32 ppb
1-	35 ppb
2-	38 ppb 1- 41 ppb 1- 47 ppb 1- 59 ppb 1- 62 ppb
1-	94 ppb
2-	132 ppb 1-161 ppb
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
in blood in blood in blood in blood in blood in blood in blood in blood in blood in blood in blood
3. In accordance with the standard policy of medical services branch of National Health and Welfare, discussions have been held with individuals having levels in the 20-99 parts per billion (ppb) range and those with "at risk" levels (see below) in order that advice might be given regarding modification of intake of the food source containing mercury (in this case, fish).
The two individuals found to be in the "at risk" group (i.e. blood mercury levels greater than 100 ppb) have been advised to undergo a complete clinical examination. One person has been examined on two occasions. The other individual has refused to be examined.

January 23, 1979
Order Paper Questions
Follow-up tests for mercury levels have been performed on individuals who have had high levels.


Mr. Herbert: What was the total of all government expenses as a percentage of the gross national product for the years 1975-76, 1976-77, 1977-78 and, what are the estimated percentages for 1978-79 and 1979-80?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Actual	Forecast**)
1975-76 1976-77 1977-78	1978-79 1979-80
(per cent of GNP)** 1 2)
Public Accounts Basis
Federal Government 21.7	21.0	20.5	20.3	19.9
Total Outlays*3)
*') Consistent with the Minister of Finance's budget speech dated November 16 1978.
t2) Calculations are based on the corresponding fiscal year gross national product figures.
1 1 The federal government sets its spending ceiling in terms of total outlays. Total outlays is the sum of budgetary expenditures and loans, investment and advances. Savings of approximately $700 million in 1977-78 budgetary expenditure resulted from the partial replacement of cash transfers to provinces by the transfer of additional tax points under the established programs financing arrangement. Adjustment for this change would increase the 1977-78 total outlays/GNP ratios to 20.8 per cent.


Mr. Bawden: 1.	How many persons were employed by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation since January 1, 1978?
2.	How many have left the employ of the Corporation since January 1, 1978?
3.	What is considered to be an acceptable level of employee turnover?


Pierre De Bané: 1
and 2. Since January 1, 1978, 32 employees have left the corporation and 32 were hired.
3. An acceptable level of employee turn-over is whatever is considered to be necessary for the most efficient operation of the corporation.


Mr. Bawden: 1.	Does the Surplus Crown Assets Act state that revenue from sales of surplus Crown assets should be deposited to the credit of the Receiver General?
2.	Were funds received for the reissue of furniture refinished by the Refinish-tng Branch of the Department of Supply and Services, amounting to $286,800 in 1966-67, remitted to the Supply Revolving Fund rather than deposited to the credit of the Receiver General and, if so, under what authority?


Pierre De Bané: 1.
No.
2. Funds received for the reissue of refinished furniture are credited to the supply revolving fund to offset related expenses, such as the cost of collecting, receiving, documenting and warehousing surplus furniture, as well as the cost of refinish-

ing, reissuing and delivering furniture, which meets an acceptable standard.
The Crown Assets Disposal Corporation "sells" acceptable furniture to the supply revolving fund at zero value. After absorbing the costs referred to above, any profits exceeding the limitation on the supply revolving fund retained earnings are remitted to the Receiver General, Consolidated Revenue Fund.


Mr. Bawden: 1.	Does the Procedure Manual of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation state that all merchandise must be inspected and valued prior to sale?
2.	Is all merchandise sold by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation inspected and valued prior to sale and, if not, what is the percentage per annum of goods sold and not handled in this manner?


Pierre De Bané: 1.
No.
2. (a) No.
(b)	Approximately 50 per cent.


Mr. Roy (Laval): During the past five years, did the City of Laval's Manpower Centre pay unemployment insurance benefits and, if so (a) to how many persons (b) in what amount annually?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The city of Laval's Canada Employment Centre which consists of the old Unemployment Insurance Centre and the Canada Manpower Centre, paid the following unemployment insurance benefits:
	Claims	Benefits Paid ($ Millions)
1973	18,360	13.91974	20,147	16.81975	22,845	23.41976	25,067	29.61977	27,102	39.8
The response provided was calculated on a calendar year basis.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	Is it the government's intention to retire the two weather ships collectively known as Ocean Station Papa and, if so, on what date?
2.	What is the undepreciated and depreciated value of the ships, and what will the government do with them once they have been retired?
3.	(a) How old are the ships (b) what is their scrap value (c) what is the estimated price that they could be sold "as is" (d) will they be put up for public auction?
4.	What is the annual operating cost of the two ships on the west coast?
5.	(a) What is the value of the research that has been conducted in order to develop the satellite sounding systems which are to be substituted for the weather ships (b) what is the cost of the research to be done?
January 23, 1979

6.	What will be the capital cost of the satellite sounding system once it is completely installed and operational?
7.	What will be the annual operating cost of the satellite sounding system?
8.	On what date will the satellite sounding system become completely operational?
9.	(a) Is the satellite sounding system a proto-type system (b) are there systems of similar function elsewhere in North America and, if so (i) where are they located (ii) how do they vary from the system to be installed on the west coast?
10.	On what date was the satellite sounding system project originally undertaken and what was the anticipated cost of the research and of the actual system at that time?
11.	(a) How many persons are employed in the operation of the weather ships and ancillary functions (b) how many will be employed in the operation of the satellite sounding system once it is in place and fully operational?


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by Environment Canada and Transport Canada as follows:
1.	Yes. Present plans call for complete termination of the Papa weather ship program in the summer of 1981. That date is contingent on the availability of data from other sources to assure the adequacy of weather services to the citizens of British Columbia.
2.	Undepreciated value for the two vessels:	$17,122,461
(book value as of March 31, 1978).
Depreciated value for the two vessels:	$10,477,822
(depreciation to March 31, 1978).
There has been no decision made regarding the role of the vessels after withdrawal from the ocean weather station Papa. Possible roles in the fields of ocean research and mapping, training, offshore surveillance and search and rescue will be considered.
3.	(a) 9 years old.
(b)	Scrap value, estimated for the two vessels: $350,000.
(c)	The price at which the vessels could be sold "as is" would be based on market demand for vessels of the weather ships type at that time. This price would only be known when bids for the vessels are received. The price should vary directly with the market demand and may be equal to scrap value if there are no roles for the vessels.
(d)	If the vessels are to be disposed of, they would be turned over to the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation which would offer them for public sale in compliance with the Surplus Crown Assets Act.
4.	Fiscal year 1977-78-$3,974,001.
5.	For part 5, it is assumed that "satellite sounding systems" is not restricted to "sounding". A number of satellite-borne systems will function as some of the alternate sources of weather data; visible and infra-red imagery, imagery from microwave sensors, and a variety of other systems including one for atmospheric sounding will make significant contributions to the data that will be available. United States figures are quoted since Canada benefits directly from U.S. work.
(a) Since 1967, it is estimated that the United States has funded the meteorological satellite program to approximately 1.25 billion dollars, over 40 per cent through civil-
Order Paper Questions
ian channels (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Almost 60 per cent of the total was devoted to operations, and the balance to research and development.
In Canada since 1963, 5 million dollars have been spent by the AES on meteorological satellite programs, about 40 per cent on research and development, and 60 per cent on operations.
On the sounding program specifically, it is estimated that about 20 per cent of the total U.S. expenditure is directly related, while in Canada, less than $90,000 can be so identified.
(b) Canadian research remaining will be small since we benefit directly from the U.S. work. Once the Tiros Operational Vertical Sounder (TOVS) now carried on the TIROS-N Satellite has been proven, Canadian research should total about $500,000 spread over several years.
6.	Capital spending within Canada to utilize the sounding data will not exceed $500,000. This amount will provide the readout capability at three locations to assure adequate coverage for all of Canada.
7.	The annual operating cost of the satellite sounding system will be about $250,000, including continuing research and development, after implementation. This will provide coverage for all of Canada.
8.	The sounding system will be operational by 1981, with its potential increasing through the 1980s with follow-on systems on new satellites.
9.	(a) No.
(b) Yes.
(i)	In Washington, D.C. and Madison, Wisconsin (also in Sydney, Australia); research systems are in operation at a number of NASA sites in the U.S. as well as in the United Kingdom, France and other European countries.
(ii)	The systems noted above are used to support large-scale global or hemispheric forecasts. The Canadian system will support such activities in this country to supplement similar data received from the U.S., but will also support regional forecasts.
10.	Work in the United States began in the late 1960s. In Canada, no work has been undertaken to date other than keeping informed of developments in the U.S. Present plans call for a research, acquisition and operational program totalling $1.25 million for the TIROS-N satellite system over the life of that satellite. Further projections cannot be made until the nature of follow-on systems becomes known.
11.	(a) One hundred sixty-four officers and unlicensed personnel.
(b) Across Canada, a small portion of the time of each of 15 persons (five at each of three locations) will be devoted to the reception and processing of the data, plus a few for equipment maintenance. The data will be used, along with other forms of data, by many meteorologists and support staff across the country.
2448

January 23, 1979
Order Paper Questions CROWN ASSETS DISPOSAL CORPORATION


Mr. Bawden: 1.	Was a study conducted on behalf of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation by an outside consultant in November or December 1977?
2.	Was the purpose of employing an outside consultant to conduct an in-depth attitude survey of employees of the Corporation and, if so, for what reason was such a survey considered necessary?
3.	What was the cost of the survey?
4.	Were employees promised that, in the interests of improved communications, they would be advised of the results of such a survey?
5.	Were the Corporation's employees subsequently advised of the results and, if not, for what reason?
6.	Was the report of the consultant in any way critical of the Corporation and, if so, what were the criticisms?
7.	Will the report of the survey be made public and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, on what date?


Pierre De Bané: 1.
Yes.
2.	Yes. To serve as the basis for the preparation by the president and consultants of a well defined action plan, in order to better satisfy the needs of the employees and the corporation.
3.	$15,000.
4.	No.
5.	No. See No. 7.
6.	See No. 7.
7.	No. (a) The confidentiality of the report dictates that it not be produced or disclosed, in accordance with the general principle dated February 16, 1973, enunciated in appendix "B" to the House of Commons debates, March 15, 1973, at page 2288. But the minister has extended an invitation to the hon. member to meet with the president of the corporation to discuss the internal management questions.


Mr. Firth: What are the current departmental policy guidelines with regard to native education with special reference to E-12?


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Departmental policy guidelines cover the statutory requirements to provide elementary and secondary level education services to Indian children whose parents are residents on reserves or Crown lands, and the provision of a discretionary program of assistance to students in continuing education programs, including those at post-secondary institutions.
The E-12 program specifically covers the provision of postsecondary student assistance. It contains the following provisions:
(a) registered Indian and Inuit students who are accepted by accredited universities, colleges, etc., are covered by the program;

(b)	students may be assisted to a limit of 96 student months, covering Bachelors, Masters and Doctoral studies;
(c)	allowances given under the program may cover cost of fees, books, lodgings for self and dependents, additional "shelter allowance" under special circumstances, training (personal) allowances which follow the Manpower rate structures, clothing allowance where need is established, special clothing allowance if nature of course demands this, allowance for special tutorial assistance, and allowances to cover special services (e.g. child-care) or contingencies;
(d)	additional incentive benefits are provided to students in masters or doctoral programs;
(e)	students must be resident in Canada at time of application for assistance, and should have gained admittance to a Canadian university or college, unless the desired program is not being offered in this country. If programs are to be taken in the U.S., qualifications received should be acceptable within the Canadian professional context;
(f)	students must demonstrate a willingness to meet the academic and financial management responsibilities of the program in order to continue to receive such assistance;
(g)	the program can be administered either by departmental counselling staff or, where this is requested, by band counsellors working under the direction of band administrative officers or a band school committee;
(h)	if a student feels that the program is not being properly applied to his/her case, there shall be access to an appeal board, consisting of an educational representative from the student's band (or a native student body representative, if away from home), a designate of the regional director-general, and a representative from the educational institution involved. Decisions of the appeal board shall be consistent with the program policy, and shall be final and binding.


Mr. Bawden: 
Pierre De Bané: 1.
No.
2.	Yes.
3.	The corporation has followed its policy on internal promotion as set out in its collective agreement.
4.	No.
5.	The corporation could only speculate on the suggestion contained in the questions as no studies of this nature are available.


Mr. Wise: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,793 of the Third Session of the 30th Parliament in which it was stated, that $15,890.79 was given by the Department of Agriculture to Laval University to "study the impact of the small farm development program in the province of Quebec", what were the results of the study?
2.	Was the impact of the small farm development program studied in other provinces and (a) if so (i) who conducted them (ii) on what date did they occur (iii) what was their cost (b) if not, for what reason?
3.	Does the Department have to go outside to study the impact of its programs and, if so (a) for what reason (b) is its personnel not capable of doing their own impact studies?


Eugene Whelan: 1. This study surveyed 97 farmers who had received amalgamations vendor assistance grants and 113 purchasers of farms from vendors who had received assistance. It was found that both vendors and purchasers were generally well satisfied with the transactions and adjustments which the program facilitated. The study also found that while medium-to-large scale farmers who purchased small farms were able to integrate and develop the acreage acquired very quickly, smaller farmers needed proper counselling to ensure effective management of the additional land and the associated investment. Special credit for purchasers was found to be of marginal usefulness in Quebec, but the option for vendors to keep their houses was found to be a useful and advantageous feature.
2.	A report is currently being written on an interim impact assessment of the Small Farm Development Program in the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.
(a)	(i) This assessment is being carried out by Dr. R. St. Louis of Quebec City, (ii) Field surveys were carried out during March and April of 1977. (iii) Estimated cost of the study is $110,000.
3.	(a) and (b) Agriculture Canada personnel are capable of carrying impact studies, but circumstances warranted the use of outside expertise for the following reasons:
(i)	The staff time required to carry out this study was not available within the department, and
(ii)	An outside assessment was desired to bring fresh insights and to ensure that the assessment was detached and free from any vested interest.
Order Paper Questions CROWN ASSETS DISPOSAL CORPORATION


Mr. Bawden: 1.	Does the Surplus Crown Assets Act state that all surplus items in departments must be reported to the Minister of Supply and Services and, if so, do the departments comply with this and, if not, for what reason?
2.	Was Mr. Clair Adams hired by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation as Vice-President Procurement and, if so, what are his duties?
3.	Is Mr. Adams a retired public servant?


Pierre De Bané: 1. No. Section 3(2) of the act identifies the property which need not be included in a report to the minister.
2.	Clair Adams is the vice-president of supply. The officer has as key responsibility the development of mechanisms and channels of communication which will permit the introduction of responsive and effective operational strategies. In addition, the officer will act as an adviser for the president on matters of policy, development, performance measurement and evaluation.
3.	Yes.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	Did the government provide funds to the Institute of Behavioural Research, Survey Research Centre, York University, Toronto, to conduct a survey across Canada which concerns problems of Canadians living in and around urban centres and, if so (a) in what amount (b) for what purpose is the research to be used (c) on what dates will the data from the survey be provided to the government?
2.	Are persons interviewed being advised that such research is being funded by the government and will the results of the survey be made public upon completion?


André Ouellet: 1.	(a) The ministry contracted with the Institute for Behavioural Research, York University, Toronto, to conduct a survey of urban priorities of Canadians living in the major metropolitan centres. The contract is not to exceed the amount of $576,588.
(b)	The survey will provide a systematic profile of public priorities and an up-to-date picture of variations within Canadian cities which will allow the ministry and other federal agencies to direct federal government urban-related program and policy efforts to areas of greatest need, thus allowing for more effective and efficient use of federal resources.
(c)	The date is expected to be available in April, 1979.
2.	(a) Interviewers were instructed that if persons to be interviewed ask who is sponsoring the research, they be told that the study is funded by the federal government.
(b)	The results of the survey will be made public. The ministry intends to make the results available to provinces and officials in those municipalities in which interviews were conducted. By means of a published report, the results of the survey will be available to a wide range of professionals and interested members of the public.
80047-14'/,

January 23, 1979
Order Paper Questions UIC-PROSECUTIONS


Mr. Robinson: From 1968 to date, how many prosecutions against employers have resulted under the Unemployment Insurance Act in (a) the Province of Ontario (b) Canada?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: (a)	(b)
Year	Ontario	Canada
1969
1970	No record of employer prosecutions for this period
1972
1973	Not available	51974	0	101975	33	541976	14	2071977	0	581*1978	3	427
Year to date, August 1978.


Mr. Wenman: 1.	What amount was set aside for the research, development and promotion of National Fish and Seafood Month, sponsored by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans?
2.	(a) How many recipe pamphlets will the government sponsor (b) to whom are these pamphlets to be distributed and what is the method of distribution (c) what other promotional materials are involved and what is the method of distribution, if different from that for the recipe pamphlets (d) what is the cost breakdown for the production and distribution of the promotional materials?
3.	(a) Were all of the research, development and promotion aspects of this programme carried out within the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans or were consultants used (b) if consultants were used, what responsibilities were assigned to them and what was the remuneration and their name?


Mr. Jack Pearsall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: 1. Approximately $400,000 was the cost estimate for the November Fish and Seafood promotion campaign.
2. (a) It is estimated that about 150,000 recipe booklets will be requested during the year as a result of the promotion.
(b)	To consumers, food editors and dieticians by mail and handouts.
(c)	Other promotional material includes: 30 second TV commercials, magazine and newspaper ads and in-store promotion material for the food retail trade, produced and distributed by an advertising agency.
(d)	The production and distribution cost breakdown is estimated as follows: TV $57,600; magazines $25,200; newspapers $21,600; printed material $15,600.

3.	(a) The promotion aspects of the programme were carried out partly by Fisheries and Oceans and partly by an advertising agency.
(b)	The following responsibilities were assigned to the Wilshar Advertising Agency Limited of Halifax, Nova Scotia: to create, produce and execute a national bilingual electronic and printed media programme to promote the designation of November as National Fish and Seafood Month.
About three-quarters of the total advertising budget of $320,000 is spent for purchasing advertising space and time. Wilshar's remuneration is the balance of this budget for developing the campaign, production costs and implementation plus a standard 15 per cent commission from the news media for the placement of the advertisement.


Mr. Mazankowski: Does the Department of Transport have a policy regarding the level of service provided to handicapped travellers at Canadian airport terminal buildings and (a) if so, what is the policy (b) if not, on what date will such a policy be developed?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes. Transport Canada has had a policy in effect since late 1974 entitled "Facilities For The Handicapped At Air Terminal Complexes."
(a)	The policy states, in general, that provision shall be made at air terminal complexes during design for new or modified facilities to ensure that appropriate access to and use of normal public facilities are provided for the handicapped.
(b)	Not applicable.


Mr. Bawden: In (a) 1973 (b) 1974 (c) 1975 (d) 1976 (e) 1977, what was the percentage relation between amounts recovered by Crown Assets Disposal Corporation from the sale of surplus assets and the Corporation's administration costs?


Pierre De Bané: (a)	7.7 per cent;
(b)	7.7 per cent;
(c)	10.3 per cent;
(d)	15 per cent;
(e)	11.4 per cent.
Note: For the years 1973, 1974 and 1975 the sale of lands was included, thus affecting the percentage required for the administration.


Mr. Malone: Was any person named W. O. Morrison hired in any capacity to work for the government or as a personal staff member to any Cabinet Minister and, if so (a)
mam
January 23, 1979

with what agency, department or Cabinet Minister (b) what is his job description (c) where is his office located (d) on what date did he commence employment (e) what is his annual salary (f) what are the criteria which determine his allowable travel expenses (g) what is to be the length of his employment (h) under which vote in the Estimates (i) is his salary drawn (ii) are his travel and operational expenses drawn?
Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: Yes.
(a)	The hon. Jack Horner;
(b)	Special assistant to the minister;
(c)	Office of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce;
(d)	March 20, 1978;
(e)	Up to $24,850;
(f)	Treasury Board travel directive;
(g)	At direction of minister;
(h)	(i) and (ii) Vote 1A, Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Did the Department of National Defence issue a press release on December 3, 1976, saying inter alia " ... the measures to improve Search and Rescue facilities will cost approximately $8 million initially; and, with full implementation in two to three years, could cost as much as $40 million" and, if so, what amount of the $40 million has been spent and for what major items?
2.	How much was spent on each coast?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1.
Yes. The total program for both coasts will cost $36.94 million, which includes $1.58 million for construction at Gander, Newfoundland.
The program is divided into two phases.
Phase I will provide improved navigation and radio aids and the addition of Night Sun Searchlight to helicopters at a cost of $8.63 million.
Phase II will provide extended range, an improved rescue hoist and an improved night/adverse weather capability at a cost of $26.73 million.
Phase I will be completed in January, 1979 and Phase II will then commence with completion targeted for late 1982.
2. Due to the interrelationship of phase I and phase II and the requirement to rotate helicopters through each phase, actual funds spent at each coast are difficult to delineate. However, when the program is completed funds spent will total as follows:
East coast	$20.86 million
(including $1.58 million for construction at Gander)
West coast	$12.86 million
In addition $3.22 million will be spent on improved helicopter capabilities which will be shared by both coasts.
Order Paper Questions PARACHUTE MAINTENANCE DEPOT


Mr. McKinnon: Have any plans been made to move the Canadian Forces Parachute Maintenance Depot from Edmonton to Petawawa and (a) if so, on what date will the move take place and at what cost (b) if not, for what reason?


Barnett Jerome Danson: No.
(a)	Not applicable.
(b)	In the present location adequate services are provided for the whole of the Canadian Forces.


Mr. McKinnon: Are DND's five Boeing 707s being fitted with Litton LTN-51 inertial navigation systems and, if so (a) for what reason (b) at what cost?


Barnett Jerome Danson: No.
(a) and (b) Not applicable.


Mr. McKinnon: Are any (a) regular (b) militia units going to receive the new AVGP and, if so (i) which units (ii) in each case, on what date and how many of each AVGP variant?


Barnett Jerome Danson: (a)
and (b) Yes.
(a)	(i) and (ii) For planned distribution to regular units see table below.
(b)	(i) and (ii) For planned distribution to the militia on the basis of region, see table below.
In addition a number of AVGPs are being distributed to training and test establishments. See table below.
Note: The three variants of AVGPs are as follows:
Wheeled armoured personnel carrier (WAPC)-Grizzly
Wheeled fire support vehicle (WFSV)-Cougar
Wheeled maintenance and recovery vehicle (WMRV)-Husky
Unit	Type	Quantity	Delivery Dates1 PPCLI	Grizzly	26	June to August, 80Husky	2	November, 802 PPCLI	Grizzly	4	May, 798	October, 798	November, 796	December, 79Husky	2	April, 803 PPCLI	Grizzly	26	September to December, 80Husky	2	December, 80
January 23, 1979
Order Paper Questions
Unit	Type	Quantity	Delivery Dates1 RCR	Grizzly	4	January, 796	February, 797	March, 79I	April, 798	May, 79Husky	2	February, 802 RCR	Grizzly	1	November, 781	December, 783	January, 7921	March to May, 80Husky	2	October, 802 R 22e R	Grizzly	4	May, 798	July, 798	August, 796	September, 79Husky	2	March, 803 R 22e R	Grizzly	4	January, 8022	February, to March, 80Husky	2	July, 80LdSH (RC)	Cougar	13	April to June, 8013	August to October, 8013	May to June, 81Husky	2	September, 808 CH	Cougar	4	October, 799	February to March, 8013	October to December, 80Husky	2	August, 8012e RBC	Cougar	4	October, 799	March to April, 8013	June to August, 8013	June to August, 81Husky	2	May, 80Region	Type	Quantity	Delivery DatePacific	Cougar	4	December, 80Grizzly	8	January, 81Prairie	Cougar	8	January, 81Grizzly	8	February, 81Central	Cougar	16	February to March, 81Grizzly	17	March to April, 81Eastern Section	Cougar Grizzly	8 12	April, 81 May to June, 81Atlantic	Cougar	5	May, 81Grizzly	10	July to August, 81Combat	Cougar	1	November, 78Training Centre	2 1	May, 79 June, 792	July, 794	September, 798	November, 794	December, 79Husky	7	January, 802	June, 80Canadian	Cougar	1	November, 78Forces School Aerospace and Grizzly	1 1	April, 79 November, 78Ordonance Engineering	Husky	1 1 1	January, 79 February, 79 June, 79Land Environ-	Cougar	1	March, 79mental Test Establishment	Grizzly	1	November, 79
[Mr. Danson.l


Mr. Jones: 1.	What was the purpose of the special $50,000 grant of "unity money" administered by the Touring Office of the Canada Council to twenty modern dance companies? What groups received this money and what were the respective portion for each?
2.	What was the basis used to determine the eligibility for this "unity money" by various groups?
3.	Will these grants be given again in 1979? From what governmental department was this money made available? Will the same department put up this amount or more for 1979?
4.	Will grants of this type be available to other artistic groups so that they might find sponsors?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows:
1.	Grants towards travel and per diem costs, in support of participation in the Toronto Dance Festival (September 19-October 22, 1978) and in the Montreal 'Octobre en Danse' festival (October 11-21, 1978), were awared to the companies and individuals listed below. The Council originally envisaged grants to about 20 applicants at a cost not exceeding $50,000; in the event, 18 grants totalling $48,556 were made.
Company
Ballets Jazz, Montreal Contemporary Dancers, Winnipeg
Entre-Six, Montreal Fulcrum, Vancouver Louise Garfield, Toronto Les Grands Ballets, Montreal Groupe Nouvelle Aire, Montreal Groupe de la Place Royale, Ottawa
Halifax Dance Co-op, Halifax
Judy Jarvis Dance & Theatre Co., Toronto
Judith Marcuse, Vancouver Jean-Pierre Perreault, Ottawa Linda Rabin, Vancouver Regina Modern Danceworks, Regina Paula Ross Dancers, Vancouver Royal Winnipeg Ballet, Winnipeg
Theatre Beyond Words, Niagara-on-the-Lake Toronto Dance Theatre, Toronto
Grant $	Festival
4,183	Toronto
9,009	Toronto and Montreal
1,640	Toronto
1,560	Toronto
600	Montreal
600	Toronto
2,337	Toronto
2,968	Toronto and Montreal
2,155	Toronto and Montreal
1,180	Montreal
1,484	Montreal
440	Montreal
522	Montreal
4,888	Toronto
5,210	Toronto
5,272	Toronto and Montreal
1,230	Montreal
3,278	Montreal
2.	Canadian professional companies or individuals are considered eligible for travel funding for this purpose if they:
(a)	apply, proposing realistic travel plans;
(b)	are invited by the organizers of the festival;
(c)	meet high standards in their particular dance form;
(d)	come from another province, or from more than 250 miles from the festival;
(e)	are not already receiving subsidy for a tour which includes the locale of the festival.
January 23, 1979

3.	The funds were part of a government grant to the Canada Council approved by parliament. It is not yet known whether funds will be available to permit similar support in 1979.
4.	Yes in principle, subject to the availability of funds and the eligibility requirements summarized in 2. above.


Mr. Hare: 1.	How many grain hopper cars were manufactured for the government and at what manufacturing locations?
2.	What is the usage rate of the cars in comparison to the rate of usage of regular box cars?
3.	On the basis of volume of cars and turnaround rate, what is the efficiency comparison of the hopper cars versus the box cars?
4.	What are the future plans for construction of grain hopper cars?


Otto Emil Lang: Transport Canada advises as follows:
1. A total of 8000 hopper cars as follows: Hawker Siddeley Marine Industries			National Steel
1972/73	700	500	8001976/77	1400	1000	16001977/78	688	488	824Total	2788	1988	32242.	Government hopper car unloadings relative to the total car unloads has climbed from 8.6 per cent in 1974 to 30.1 per cent in 1977.3.	An average of 45.7 per cent more tonnage per car mile
was carried in government hopper cars in 1977 than in railway-owned boxcars.
4.	This matter is under active consideration.


Mr. Neil: Does the Department of National Health and Welfare or any other department fund the National Anti-Poverty Association or any of its provincial branches and, if so, what was the extent of the funding since the formation of the organization?


Monique Bégin: In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned: yes. The National Anti-Poverty Organization, since its incorporation in 1973, has received to date $577,273 in contributions and grants from the Department of National Health and Welfare.
Fiscal Year	Contributions	Sustaining Grant	Total1974/75	5,000 8,100	-	60,987	-	74,0871975/76	1,099 2,044	-	120,000	-	123,1431976/77	135,293	-	135,2931977/78	-	136,000	136,0001978/79	-	108,750	108,750332,523	244,750	577,273
Order Paper Questions WATER REQUIREMENTS


Mr. Laprise: Did the government estimate hydraulic resources and water requirements with regard to consumption, irrigation, industrial uses and hydro-electric production for the next few years and was a report published and, if so, on what date?


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by Environment Canada
and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as follows:
Environment Canada conducts research and data collection programs on the quantity and quality of inland waters and publishes regular reports. Surveys of current water use in municipalities and large industries are also conducted and the results published. In conjunction with provincial government, forecasts of water use have been prepared for specific regions and the results used to develop water management plans. These planning studies have been published and can be obtained from the Editorial and Publications Division, Inland Waters Directorate, Environment Canada, 6 Floor, Place Vincent Massey, Hull, Quebec".
In so far as the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is concerned:
Yes.
Power survey of the Kazan, Dubawnt, Thelon and Han-bury River Basins, N.W.T.-March, 1970.
Southern Great Slave Lake Region Power Potential-August, 1974.
Yukon and N.W.T. Power Survey, Pre-reconnaissance study-September, 1971.
The Development of Power in the Yukon-January, 1975.
Yukon and N.W.T. Power Study (Bathurst Inlet)-Being prepared.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton): 1.	During the past year, what was the total expenditure of freight including the movement of personal effects from Canada to other countries by the Department of External Affairs and other departments and agencies processed through the Central Freight Service and Central Removal Service of the Department of Supply and Services, excluding shipments which were made from Canada to the United States?
2.	What amount of this traffic was moved by air and how much was moved by Canadian carriers?
3.	How much of the total traffic was handled by (a) Panalpina World Transport Ltd. (b) Elmac World Transport Ltd.?


Pierre De Bané: 1.
Central Freight Service
The total value of the invoices processed by central freight service covering the movement of freight to other countries,

January 23, 1979
Order Paper Questions
excluding the United States, during the 12 month period ending September 30, 1978 was:
(a)	External Affairs	$229,801.63(b)	Other Departments, agencies	416,360.71


[Stage Direction]
Central Removal Service
The total expenditure by central removal service covering the movement of personal effects to other countries, excluding the United States, during the 12-month period ending September 30,1978, was:
(a)	In the Department of External Affairs, nil.
(b)	For other Departments and agencies, $9,182.66.
2.	Central Freight Service
Byair	$472,320.97
By Canadian carriers	$237,710.88
Central Removal Service
Of the $9,182.66 referred to in "1" covering central removal service, $7,080.78 was moved by air and $5,291.68 of this amount was moved by Canadian carriers.
3.	Central Freight Service
The portion of the total traffic shown in "1" covering central freight service handled by (a) Panalpina was-$402,756.19 and (b) Elmac was-$30,625.73. The control of the routing of this traffic and consequently the choice of the supplier of this service rests with the customer departments.
Central Removal Service
None of the household goods traffic was handled by either (a) Panalpina World Transport Ltd. or (b) Elmac World Transport Ltd.
Mr. McKinnon: By rank, how many Canadian Armed Forces (a) officers (b) enlisted personnel are involved in (i) naval (ii) land (iii) air operations?


Barnett Jerome Danson: (a)
and (b)
(i)	Naval operations cover the classification as listed in table below. The breakout by rank is as follows:
Officers	Other Ranks
Colonel	46	Chief Warrant Officer	148Lieutenant-Colonel	125	Master Warrant Officer	422Major	346	Warrant Officer	638Captain	442	Sergeant	978Lieutenant	336	Master Corporal	793Second Lieutenant Officer Cadet	69 292	Corporal/Private Total	4,389 7,368Total	1,656	
(ii) Land operations cover only infantry, artillery and armour. Land operations combat support elements such as engineers, signals etc. are all part of unifield elements and to identify those portions which are in immediate support of land operations would entail a long and

detailed analysis for which the department does not have the necessary resources. The following figures are for infantry artillery and armour personnel:
Officers	Other Ranks
Colonel	50	Chief Warrant Officer	81Lieutenant-Colonel	135	Master Warrant Officer	208Major	394	Warrant Officer	527Captain	660	Sergeant	1,130Lieutenant	361	Master Corporal	1,342Second Lieutenant	53	Corporal/Private	6,748Officer Cadet Total	293 1,946	Total	10,036(iii)	Air operations cover the classifications listed in table below. The breakout by rank is as follows:
Officers
Colonel	99
Lieutenant-Colonel	304
Major	927
Captain	2,238
Lieutenant	559
Second Lieutenant	107
Officer Cadet	616
Total	4,850
Officer Classifications
Maritime Engineering Maritime Surface and Sub-Surface
Aerospace Engineering
Air Navigator
Air Traffic Control
Air Weapons Control
Flight Engineer
Meteorology
Pilot
Other Ranks
Chief Warrant Officer	126
Master Warrant Officer	336
Warrant Officer	785
Sergeant	1,833
Master Corporal	2,744
Corporal/Private	6,517
Total	12,341
Other Ranks Trades
Boatswain Clearance Diver
Communications Technician (Sea) Electrical Technician Electronic Warfare Operator Electronic Warfare Technician Firecontrolman Firecontrol Technician Hull Technician Marine Engineering Technician Oceanographic Operator Radar Plotter (Sea)
Radar Technician (Sea)
Radioman (Sea)
Signalman (Sea)
Sonarman (Sea)
Sonar Technician Weaponman Surface Weaponman Underwater Weapons Surface Technician Weapons Underwater Technician
Aero Engine Technician Air Defence Technician Airframe Technician Air Traffic Control Assistant Air Traffic Controller Aviation Technician Avionics Technician Communications Systems Technician Flight Engineer
Instrument Electrical Technician Integral Systems Technician Machinist Metals Technician Meteorological Technician Observer Photographic Technician Radar Systems Technician Refinisher Technician Safety Systems Technician Weapons Technician (Air)
January 23, 1979


Mr. McKinnon: By rank, how many Canadian Armed Forces (a) female (b) male officers are (i) lawyers (ii) doctors (iii) dentists (iv) accountants (v) professional engineers (vi) nurses (vii) ministers of religion?


Barnett Jerome Danson: (i)	Colonel Lieutenant-Colonel Major
Captain
(ii)	Colonel Lieutenant-Colonel Major
Captain Lieutenant Second Lieutenant Officer Cadet
(iii)	Colonel Lieutenant-Colonel Major
Captain
Second Lieutenant Officer Cadet
(iv)	Lieutenant-Colonel Major
Captain
Lieutenant
(v)	Colonel Lieutenant-Colonel Major
Captain Lieutenant Second Lieutenant Officer Cadet
(vi)	Colonel Lieutenant-Colonel Major
Captain Lieutenant Officer Cadet
(vii)	Colonel Lieutenant-Colonel Major
Captain Officer Cadet
Female Male
10
2	12
1	15
1	40
6	112
19	125
6	35
15	84
1	2
18
5	82
6	40
3	See note 1 63
6	231
7	53
79	See note 2
245 730
3	1,389
6	495
14	474
2 2
165	9
159	14
5	1
4 14
83
Note 1 Statistics for "accountants" reflect all qualified finance officers in the Canadian Forces.
Note 2 Statistics for "professional" engineers reflect all qualified engineering officers in the Canadian Forces and not only those who are members of the professional Engineering Association of Canada.


Mr. McKinnon: Order Paper Questions
Captain Lieutenant Second Lieutenant Officer Cadet Total
(b) Chief Warrant Officer Master Warrant Officer Warrant Officer Sergeant Major Corporal Corporal/Private Total
(i) Female	(ii) Male
291	5,789
254	1,826
31	352
100	2,097
726	14,255
	800
4	2,096
14	4,190
123	9,665
236	10,601
3,610	32,740
3,987	60,092


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Department of National Health and Welfare place warnings on cigarette advertisements in transportation systems in Quebec, specifically in the metro or in buses in Montreal and, if so (a) at what cost (b) were the warnings printed in the French language only and, if so, for what reason (c) does the government who advocates two official languages, consider itself bound by any Quebec legislation in regard to unilingual advertisements and, if so, for what reasons and on what grounds?
2.	If such cigarette advertisements were placed by tobacco companies and not the government, what are all the reasons that the government does not insist that the warning regarding health and cigarettes be printed in the two official languages?


Monique Bégin: In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned:-
1.	No. The Department of National Health and Welfare did not place warnings on cigarette advertisements in transportation systems in Quebec, (a) Not applicable; (b) Not applicable; (c) Not applicable.
2.	Cigarette advertisements are placed by the tobacco companies in accordance with the requirements of province of Quebec language legislation.


Mr. Cossitt: Did the Department of Finance place advertisements for Canada Savings Bonds in transportation systems in Quebec, specifically in the metro or in buses in Montreal and, if so (a) at what cost (b) were the advertisements printed in the French language only and, if so, for what reason (c) does the government who advocates two official languages, consider itself bound by any Quebec legislation in regard to unilingual advertisements and, if so, for what reasons and on what grounds?
By rank, how many (a) officers (b) enlisted personnel in the Canadian Armed Forces are (i) female (ii) male?


Barnett Jerome Danson: (a)	(i) Female	(ii) Male
General		1
Lieutenant-General		8
Major-General		23
Brigadier-General		78
Colonel	3	314Lieutenant-Colonel	6	908Major	41	2,859


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: (a)	Yes, the Department of Finance did authorize Canada Savings Bond advertisements in transportation systems in Quebec and these advertisements were placed only in the metro and buses in Montreal. The total cost of these advertisements was $18,189.
(b)	The advertisements were printed in the French language only, as has been the practice since this form of advertising was first used for CSBs in 1973. Each year the CSB advertising has incorporated a separate French and English campaign

January 23, 1979
Order Paper Questions
theme so as to better serve Canada's two major cultural groups. This has meant that some posters have to be designed in unilingual form but in most cases both French and English posters are displayed together. In the case of the metro and bus advertising in Montreal, the government's French advertising agency for CSBs recommended the use of French only posters to create greater awareness of CSBs in the very large Montreal French market so as to supplement advertising in daily newspapers. Advertisements in newspapers and in most financial institutions were in both French and English.
(c)	The government in its Canada Savings Bonds advertising program does not consider itself bound by any Quebec legislation in regard to unilingual advertisements.


Mr. Francis: What would be the amount of money to the credit of the Superannuation Account in the years (a) 1990 (b) 2025, if no changes were made to the Public Service Superannuation Plan and using the same assumptions that the Tomen-son-Alexander study used in making its projections, namely, an average retirement age of 61.5 years, an average rate of inflation of 6 per cent per year compounded, an average rate of salary increase of S'/z per cent per year compounded and an average rate of interest earnings of 8Vi per cent per year compounded?


J. Judd Buchanan: (a) $39,872,700,000; (b) $1,197,387,800,000.


Mr. McKinnon: For what type of guided missile did the Department of National Defence order $86,061 worth of warheads from Space Research Corporation, Quebec and, how many warheads does this cover?


Barnett Jerome Danson: The
contract was for unfilled developmental warheads for the Canad'an C-14 (CRV-7) 2.75 inch unguided rocket. The contract covers 300 warheads.


Mr. McKinnon: Has a contract for $56,723 been awarded on behalf of DND to Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, for research on the development of acoustic analysis of human speech and, if so (a) what is the purpose of the research (b) will the results be made available to members of parliament?


Barnett Jerome Danson: (a)
Yes. To carry out new investigations in the field of automatic speech recognition in order to fill gaps in our knowledge relating to the use of speech control systems by the Canadian Armed Forces, (b) Yes. Results will be available to members of parliament on request.

DND-contract for terrain evaluation


Mr. McKinnon: Was a contract for $63,396 awarded on behalf of DND to McGill University, Montreal, Quebec for terrain evaluation related to Canadian Forces vehicle mobility - phase II and, if so (a) what is the purpose of the study (b) which types of terrain are being evaluated (c) which vehicles are being evaluated?


Barnett Jerome Danson: (a)
Yes. To analyse surface characteristics of representative northern Canadian terrains as a basis for trafficability maps, vehicle design specifications, mobility index and a data source for a computer model, (b) The Caribou Hills area of the MacKenzie River, North West Territories and Churchill, Manitoba, (c) The study does not include evaluation of vehicles.


Mr. McKinnon: Did the NFA's request for proposals indicate to the competitors that funds available in 1977 dollars amounted to $5 million in 1978-79, $25 million in 1979-80, $80 million in 1981 and to no more than 15% of total contract value for each following year to 1986-87 and, if so, have there been any changes to this funding schedule and what are they?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Yes. There have been no changes to the funding schedule provided to the competitors.


Mr. McKinnon: Was Airwest Airlines Ltd., Richmond, British Columbia, awarded a contract of (a) $132,000 (b) $24,039 for air services class 7 (drop testing of sonobuoys) at Nanoose, B.C. and, if so, for what reason was this work contracted out?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Yes. The reason this work was contracted out was that for such sonobuoy drop tests it is more economical to use a commercial aircraft than a complex, sophisticated and more costly to operate military aircraft.


Mr. McKinnon: With reference to the answer to Question No. 326, on what date will the technical publications be available?


Barnett Jerome Danson: The
first section will be available in August, 1979 and all sections will be available by March, 1980.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Was Lockheed Aircraft Corporation paid the progress payment on the LRPA contract of (a) $9,959,000 due on October 31, 1977 (b) $10,518,000 due on November 30, 1977 (c) $11,408,000 due on December 31, 1977 (d) $13,596,000 due on January 31, 1978 (e) $14,587,000 due on February 28, 1978 (f) $7,034,000 due on March 31, 1978 (g) $21,340,000 due on April 30, 1978 (h) $10,899,000 due on May 31, 1978 (!) $11,121,000 due on June 30, 1978 0) $11,189,000 due on July 31, 1978 (k) $11,620,000 due on August 31, 1978 (1)
January 23, 1979

$12,634,000 due on September 30, 1978 (m) $13,464,000 due on October 31, 1978?
2.	Was Lockheed paid under the contract the (a) fifth Accomplishment Milestone Payment of $3,545,000 (b) sixth Accomplishment Milestone Payment of $7,076,000 (c) seventh Accomplishment Milestone Payment of $898,000 (d) eighth Accomplishment Milestone Payment of $915,000 (e) ninth Accomplishment Milestone Payment of $2,918,000?
3.	Were any adjustments made to the LRPA contract price at the end of the third and fourth quarters of 1977 and the first, second and third quarters of 1978 in accordance with the formula and conditions set out in Articles 8.1, 8.2, 8.3 and 8.4 of the contract and, if so, what were they?
4.	What is the estimated cost of the Comox Data Interpretation and Analysis Centre (a) in dollars (b) as a percentage of the cost of the Greenwood DIAC?
5.	Have any modifications been made to the contract, including Progress and Accomplishment Milestone Payments Schedules, to accommodate the purchase of the Comox DIAC and, if so, what are they?
6.	Is the purchase of the Comox DIAC being handled separately and, if so, in what manner?
7.	With reference to the Greenwood DIAC, for what reason and in what way has it been re-configured?


Pierre De Bané: 1.	(a) Yes, but in the amount of $ 10,645,434
(b)	Yes, but in the amount of $11,917,000
(c)	Yes, but in the amount of $13,374,000
(d)	Yes, but in the amount of $15,794,200
(e)	Yes, but in the amount of $16,358,800
(0 Yes, but in the amount of $ 8,414,000
(g)	Yes, but in the amount of $19,784,592
(h)	Yes, but in the amount of $10,155,114
(i)	Yes, but in the amount of $12,177,488
(j)	Yes, but in the amount of $10,457,926
(k)	Yes, but in the amount of $11,909,000
(l)	Yes, but in the amount of $12,741,000
(m)	Yes, but in the amount of $12,755,113
The reason for the difference between the amounts paid and the amounts specified in the contract is that the contract has been amended to add the Comox DIAC, to advance delivery of certain contract work including advance procurement of production assets to support the flight test program, to introduce some holdbacks in payments due to strike related delays and to reflect credits related to the economic price adjustment provisions of the contract.
2.	(a) to (e) Yes.
3.	Economic Price Adjustments as follows:
(a)	3rd quarter 1977-$429,498 U.S. reduction
(b)	4th quarter 1977-$1,284,886 U.S. reduction
(c)	1st quarter 1978-$1,200,074 U.S. reduction
(d)	2nd quarter 1978-$875,887 U.S. reduction
(e)	3rd quarter 1978-to be determined.
4.	(a) $5.0M (U.S.)
(b)	approx. 20 per cent; however the Comox DIAC
possesses a reduced capability to the Greenwood DIAC.
Order Paper Questions
5. Yes.-Revised Progress Payment Table as per Amendment No. 8, March 9, 1978. Amount	
January 31, 1978	$15,766,000
February 28, 1978	$16,246,000
March 31, 1978	$ 8,207,000
April 30, 1978	$20,211,000
May 31, 1978	$11,440,000
June 30, 1978	$12,161,000
July 31, 1978	$11,658,000
August 31, 1978	$11,909,000
September 30, 1978	$12,696,000
October 31, 1978	$13,631,000
November 30, 1978	$12,932,000
December 31, 1978	$ 1,963,000
January 31,1979	$ 318,000
February 28, 1979	$ 340,000
March 31, 1979	$ 319,000
April 30, 1979	$59,721,000
May 31, 1979	$10,667,000
June 30, 1979	$11,092,000
July 31, 1979	$12,292,000
August 31, 1979	$13,318,000
September 30, 1979	$14,977,000
October 31, 1979	$14,376,000
November 30, 1979	$15,988,000
December 31, 1979	$19,550,000
January 31, 1980	$17,143,000
February 29, 1980	$11,476,000
March 31, 1980	$ 52,000
April 30, 1980	$42,811,000
May 31, 1980	$14,925,000
June 30, 1980	$17,514,000
July 31, 1980	$14,305,000
August 31, 1980	$10,879,000
September 30, 1980	$ 8,850,000
October 31, 1980	$ 7,279,000
November 30, 1980	$ 5,886,000
December 31, 1980	$ 6,611,000
January 31, 1981	$ 1,656,000
February 28, 1981	$ 2,914,000
6. The Comox DIAC was	procured by amendment to the
prime contract.
7. The configuration of the Greenwood DIAC was changed to reduce the requirement to rewrite computer software programs obtained from the U.S. Navy and apply the cost savings thus achieved to enable the procurement of a second DIAC with sufficient capability to meet the more limited operational needs for Comox. The changes incorporated in the Treenwood DIAC consisted primarily of substitution of certain sub-system equipment without any degradation in the over-all operational capability of the complete system.

January 23, 1979
Order Paper Questions CAST COMBAT GROUP


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Is the CAST combat group role assigned at the present time to the 5e Groupe-Brigade du Canada and, if so, what (a) manpower (b) equipment can the group contribute to AMF(L)?
2.	Did the Minister of National Defence announce on October 31, 1978, that he wanted to base the CAST combat group role as much as possible on one formation, and did he also announce that effective September 1980, this role would be assigned to the Special Service Force and, if so, will the CAST combat group role rest solely with the SSF and, if not, which other units will also contribute to it?
3.	When the role is assigned to the SSF, what (a) manpower (b) equipment will the group be able to contribute to AMF(L)?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1. (a)
and (b) Yes. However, manpower and equipment for the AMF(L) battalion group is provided by the special service force.
2.	Yes. The special service force will only be augmented by one battalion group from one Canadian brigade group.
3.	All.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Of the $150 million cut in DND's budget announced on September 8, 1978, what amount will be cut in the fiscal year (a) 1978-79 (b) 1979-80?
2.	What amount will come from the (a) operations and maintenance budget (b) capital budget?
3.	What effect will the $150 million have on the base figures in Votes 1 and 10 which are used in calculating budget increases in accordance with the 1975 formula for increases?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1. (a)
and (b) The $150 million reduction in the defence services budget will be made in fiscal year 1979-80.
2.	(a) $102 million.
(b) $48 million-mostly in the capital construction program.
3.	The reduction will be a one year decrease in spending authority and will not affect the base figures of vote 1 and vote 5 which will be used to calculate the next year's requirements in accordance with the 1975 formula. Vote 10 will not be affected by the reduction.


Mr. McKinnon: Is Project SAMSON, originally scheduled for completion in mid-1976, now in (a) full (b) partial operation and if the latter, on what date will it be in full operation?


Barnett Jerome Danson: (a)
No. (b) Yes. Early 1980.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	On what date will delivery of the new fighter aircraft begin?
2.	On what date will the new fighter aircraft enter squadron service?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1. It
is expected that the first aircraft will be delivered by the manufacturer in January, 1982.
2. Mid 1983.


Mr. Howie: As of November 1, 1978, approximately how many persons received unemployment insurance from the Fredericton, New Brunswick Office?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Four thousand eight hundred. Beneficiary statistics are gathered at the end of every month. The above figure represents data gathered on October 31, 1978.


Mr. Howie: For the fiscal year ended March 31, 1978, how many persons have benefited from the Canada Manpower Industrial Training Programme in Fredericton, New Brunswick?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: During the fiscal year ended March 31, 1978, 604 persons commenced training under the Canada Manpower Industrial Training Program in Fredericton, New Brunswick.


Mr. Howie: On November 1, 1978, how many persons were registered for work at the Fredericton, New Brunswick employment office?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: On November 1, 1978, there was a total of 8,777 persons who were registered for work at the Fredericton, New Brunswick Canada Employment Centre.


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1978, how many persons have benefited from on the job training under the manpower training programmes in Fredericton, New Brunswick?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: During the period January 1, 1978 to December 11, 1978, 815 persons commenced training under the Canada Manpower Industrial Training Program in Fredericton, New Brunswick. All of this training involved on-the-job instruction.
January 23, 1979


Mr. Bawden: 1.	What is the present distribution of government publications to full depository libraries in Canada?
2.	Does the Department of Supply and Services propose to reduce the number of full depository libraries in 1979 and, if so (a) by what number (b) what cities or areas will be affected?
3.	What is the present distribution of government publications to selective depository libraries in Canada?
4.	Does the Department propose to reduce the number of selective depository libraries in 1979 and, if so (a) by what number (b) what cities or areas will be affected?
5.	Is it considered that such a reduction is justified in view of the fact that the public is student, consumer, business person, scientist, academic, etc.?
6.	In what way is it contemplated that the public will be kept informed if drastic reductions are contemplated in the present service?
7.	Is it considered that the above plans conform with the expressed intention of the government to introduce freedom of information legislation in this parliamentary session?


Pierre De Bané: 1. There are currently 47 full depository libraries in Canada.
2.	No. (a) and (b) Alternatives are being explored to achieve the reduction of $2 millions in the subsidy for free and subsidized distribution of government publications.
3.	There are presently 1,453 institutions, groups or individuals designated as selective depository libraries in Canada.
4.	No. (a) and (b) Alternatives are being explored to achieve the reduction of $2 millions in the subsidy for free and subsidized distribution of government publications.
5.	The reduction in expenditures is justified as are all reductions in expenditures which affect many programs. However, we will assure that the alternative selected minimizes the impact this reduction may have on the public.
6.	The depositories in Canada will continue to provide the service of disseminating information.
7.	There is no intention to restrict availability of published material to the public. Publications emanating from federal departments and agencies will continue to be both distributed free of charge to depositories and will be made available for purchase across Canada.


Mr. Howie: What amount was spent by the Ministry of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) on the 1978 Grey Cup pre-game and half-time shows?


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: In so far as the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) is concerned: Nil.


Mr. Howie: Did the Department of Labour engage outside lawyers or consultants in New Brunswick (a) in the Fiscal year 1977-78 (b) from April 1 to December 1, 1978 and, if so, what were their names and what amount was each paid?
Order Paper Questions


Alan Gray Martin: (a) J. Brian D. Malone, Lawyer-$2,146. (b) Nil


Mr. Stevens: Did the Department of Supply and Services award any contracts to IBM Canada Ltd. in (a) 1977 (b) the nine months ended October 1978 and, if so (i) how many (ii) in what amount?


Pierre De Bané: (a)
1977 (i) 2,209 (ii) $19,354,000. (b) First nine months-1978 (i) 2,335 (ii) $29,008,000.


Mr. Stevens: Did the Department of Supply and Services award any contracts to Litton Systems (Canada) Ltd. in (a) 1977 (b) the nine months ended October 1978 and, if so (i) how many (ii) in what amount?


Pierre De Bané: (a)
1977: (i) 96; (ii) $3,735,000. (b) First 9 months-1978: (i) 92;
(ii)	$7,038,000.


Mr. Stevens: Did the Department of Supply and Services award any contracts to Digital Equipment of Canada in (a) 1977 (b) the nine months ended October 1978 and, if so (i) how many (ii) in what amount?


Pierre De Bané: (a)
1977: (i) 209; (ii) $4,559,000. (b) Fist nine months-1978: (i) 240; (ii) $4,944,000.


Mr. Stevens: Did the Department of Supply and Services award any contracts to Multiple Access Ltd. in (a) 1977 (b) the nine months ended October 1978 and, if so (i) how many (ii) in what amount?


Pierre De Bané: (a)
1977: (i) 10; (ii) $54,000. (b) First nine months-1978: (i) 14; (ii) $700,000.


Mr. Stevens: Did the Department of Supply and Services award any contracts to Canadian General Electric Co. Ltd. in (a) 1977 (b) the nine months ended October 1978 and, if so (i) how many (ii) in what amount?


Pierre De Bané: (a)
1977: (i) 561; (ii) $3,047,000. (b) First nine months-1978: (i) 654; (ii) $4,533,000.

January 23, 1979
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Stevens: Did the Department of Supply and Services award any contracts to Electrohome Ltd. in (a) 1977 (b) the nine months ended October 1978 and, if so (i) how many (ii) in what amount?


Pierre De Bané: (a)
1977: (i) 25; (ii) $669,000. (b) First nine months-1978: (i) 25; (ii) $374,000.


Mr. Stevens: Did the Department of Supply and Services award any contracts to Magna International Inc. in (a) 1977 (b) the nine months ended October 1978 and, if so (i) how many (ii) in what amount?


Pierre De Bané: (a)
1977: (i) 29; (ii) $298,000. (b) First nine months-1978: (i) 21; (ii) $2,530,000.


Mr. Stevens: Did the Department of Supply and Services award any contracts to Tektronix Canada Ltd. in (a) 1977 (b) the nine months ended October 1978 and, if so (i) how many (ii) in what amount?


Pierre De Bané: (a)
1977 (i) 404 (ii) $2,957,000. (b) First nine months-1978 (i) 452 (ii) $2,410,000.


Mr. Stevens: Did the Department of Supply and Services award any contracts to Westing-house Canada Ltd. in (a) 1977 (b) the nine months ended October 1978 and, if so (i) how many (ii) in what amount?


Pierre De Bané: (a)
1977: (i) 368; (ii) $1,979,000. (b) First nine months of 1978' (i) 539; (ii) $4,410,000.


Mr. Stevens: Did the Department of Supply and Services award any contracts to Northern Canada Sales Ltd. in (a) 1977 (b) the nine months ended October 1978 and, if so (i) how many (ii) in what amount?


Pierre De Bané: (a)
1977: (i) 16; (ii) $116,000. (b) First nine months of 1978: (i) 38; (ii) $353,000.


Mr. Stevens: Did the Department of Supply and Services award any contracts to Campbell Soup Co. Ltd. in (a) 1977 (b) the nine months ended October 1978 and, if so (i) how many (ii) in what amount?


Pierre De Bané: (a)
1977: (i) 3; (ii) $25,000. (b) First nine months of 1978: (i) 1; (ii) $10,000.


Mr. Stevens: Did the Department of Supply and Services award any contracts to International Harvester Canada in (a) 1977 (b) the nine months ended October 1978 and, if so (i) how many (ii) in what amount?


Pierre De Bané: (a)
1977: (i) 100; (ii) $2,627,000. (b) First nine months-1978: (i) 135; (ii) $5,765,000.


Mr. Stevens: Did the Department of Supply and Services award any contracts to Bailey Meter Co. Ltd. in (a) 1977 (b) the nine months ended October 1978 and, if so
(i)	how many (ii) in what amount?


Pierre De Bané: (a)
1977: (i) 90; (ii) $231,000. (b) First 9 months-1978: (i) 133;
(ii)	$1,136,000.


Mr. Stevens: Did the Department of Supply and Services award any contracts to Du Pont of Canada Ltd. in (a) 1977 (b) the nine months ended October 1978 and, if so (i) how many (ii) in what amount?


Pierre De Bané: (a)
1977: (i) Nil; (ii) Nil. (b) First nine months-1978: (i) 1; (ii) $266.


Mr. Stevens: Did the Department of Supply and Services award any contracts to AES Data Ltd. in (a) 1977 (b) the nine months ended October 1978 and, if so (i) how many (ii) in what amount?


Pierre De Bané: (a)
1977: (i) 168; (ii) $2,277,000. (b) First nine months-1978: (i) 225; (ii) $2,673,000.


Mr. Stevens: Did the Department of Supply and Services award any contracts to Dixon Pencil Co. Ltd. in (a) 1977 (b) the nine months ended October 1978 and, if so (i) how many (ii) in what amount?


Pierre De Bané: (a)
1977: (i) 26; (ii) $223,000. (b) First nine months-1978: (i) 68; (ii) $436,000.
January 23, 1979


Mr. Stevens: Did the Department of Supply and Services award any contracts to Kodak Canada Ltd. in (a) 1977 (b) the nine months ended October 1978 and, if so (i) how many (ii) in what amount?


Pierre De Bané: (a): 1977: (i) 433; (ii) $5,422,000. (b) First 9 months-1978: (i) 591; (ii) $6,572,000.


Mr. Stevens: Did the Department of Supply and Services award any contracts to Xerox of Canada Ltd. in (a) 1977 (b) the nine months ended October 1978 and, if so (i) how many (ii) in what amount?


Pierre De Bané: (a)
1977: (i) 1,253; (ii) $6,762,000. (b) First nine months-1978: (i) 2,833; (ii) $33,905,000.


Mr. Stevens: Did the Department of Supply and Services award any contracts to 3M Canada Ltd. in (a) 1977 (b) the nine months ended October 1978 and, if so (i) how many (ii) in what amount?


Pierre De Bané: (a)
1977: (i) 845; (ii) $2,314,000. (b) First nine months of 1978:(i) 1,114; (ii) $6,054,000.


Mr. Stevens: Did the Department of Supply and Services award any contracts to Master Mailers Ltd. in (a) 1977 (b) the nine months ended October 1978 and, if so (i) how many (ii) in what amount?


Pierre De Bané: (a)
1977: (i) Nil; (ii) Nil. (b) First nine months-1978: (i) 10; (ii) $237,000.


Mr. Stevens: Did the Department of Supply and Services award any contracts to Alcan Aluminum in (a) 1977 (b) the nine months ended October 1978 and, if so (i) how many (ii) in what amount?


Pierre De Bané: (a)
1977: (i) 23; (ii) $190,000 (b) First nine months-1978: (i) 28; (ii) $137,000.


Mr. Stevens: Did the Department of Supply and Services award any contracts to Massey-Ferguson in (a) 1977 (b) the nine months ended October 1978 and, if so (i) how many (ii) in what amount?
Order Paper Questions


Pierre De Bané: (a)
1977: (i) 3; (ii) $14,000. (b) First nine months-1978: (i) 5; (ii) $16,000.


Mr. Stevens: Did the Department of Supply and Services award any contracts to General Motors of Canada in (a) 1977 (b) the nine months ended October 1978 and, if so (i) how many (ii) in what amount?


Pierre De Bané: (a)
1977: (i) 858; (ii) $6,048,000. (b) First nine months-1978: (i) 627; (ii) $15,729,000.


Mr. Stevens: Did the Department of Supply and Services award any contracts to The Molson Companies in (a) 1977 (b) the nine months ended October 1978 and, if so (i) how many (ii) in what amount?


Pierre De Bané: (a)
1977: (i) 522; (ii) $1,041,000. (b) First nine months of 1978: (i) 585; (ii) $1,916,000.


Mr. Stevens: Did the Department of Supply and Services award any contracts to Canadian International Paper in (a) 1977 (b) the nine months ended October 1978 and, if so (i) how many (ii) in what amount?


Pierre De Bané: (a)
1977: (i) 207; (ii) $320,000. (b) First nine months-1978: (i) 189; (ii) $386,000.


Mr. Howie: Since August 1, 1978, have any changes been made in the time table for implementation of the metric system in Canada?


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: One hundred and two sector committees comprising over 2,000 volunteers are developing the plans and schedules for implementation of the metric system in their sectors of the economy. No changes have been brought to the attention of Metric Commission Canada since August 1, 1978.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,853 of the Third Session of the 30th Parliament which states in part: "Clerks, typists, stenographers, secretaries may use any classification stamp or seal provided they have been properly cleared and are acting under the direction of a person authorized to classify information", what are the names of all persons in each department who have

January 23, 1979
Order Paper Questions
authorization to give such directions to staff members regarding classification of documents as "top secret", "secret", "confidential", "most secret", etc.?


Yvon Pinard: See reply to question No. 178 answered December 18, 1978.


Mr. Howie: What amount was spent to date by NRC on the advanced Teleoperator System?


Mr. Pierre Bussieres (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology):: In so far as the National Research Council is concerned, the reply is as follows: Up to the end of November, 1978, expenditures by NRC on the advanced teleoperator system amount to $71,737,000.


Mr. Howie: What amount was spent to date by NRC on materials used for the Teleoperator System and approximately what amount was imported from outside of Canada?


Pierre Bussières: In so far as the National Research Council is concerned, the reply is as follows: It is estimated for the project as a whole that 70 per cent of the expenditures are for labour and 30 per cent for materials so that approximately $21,521,000 has been expended on materials. It is also estimated that Canadian content of this project is 90.7 per cent so that approximately $2,000,000 has been expended to date on materials from outside of Canada.


Yvon Pinard: If question No. 216 could be made an order for return, that return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreeable to the House that question No. 216 be made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Jones: 1.	Has there been an occupational training agreement signed between the federal government and the government of New Brunswick? What are the terms of this agreement? What dollar value does this agreement have? If this is a minimum value, what is the maximum?
2.	Who is eligible for this occupational training program? Is there any responsibility for this program with the employer and if so, how much?
3.	What factors within the province of New Brunswick will influence this program? List them and explain.

4.	Does this program differ from Industrial Assistance Training programs and if so, how? Will any program of industrial training benefit from this program and if so, how?
Return tabled.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, would you be good enough to call starred questions 235 and 236? Because of the length of the answers I would ask the consent of the House to have them printed in Hansard as if read.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.
[ Text]


Mr. Woolliams: With reference to the projected 1978-79 Estimates expenditure of the Law Reform Commission of Canada for Administrative and Foreign Service personnel (a) what services and functions do the Foreign Service personnel perform (b) where do the personnel in this category work (c) what are the names of the persons now occupying these positions?


Claude-André Lachance: The Law Reform Commission of Canada employs three public servants of the administrative and foreign service category, but none of these are of the foreign service classification. The functions, work location and names of the three employees of the administrative service classification are as follows:
(a) Services and functions:
(i)	The secretary of the commission is responsible to the chairman for policy and planning governing the operations of the commission's headquarters in Ottawa and its regional office in Montreal.
(ii)	The office manager of the Montreal regional office is
responsible for the operations of the commission's Montreal regional office.	-
(iii)	The office manager of the headquarters of the commission in Ottawa is responsible for the efficient functioning of office support services.
The work location and names of the occupants of the
positions are:	(b)	(c)Positions	Location	IncumbentCommission Secretary	Ottawa	Mr. Jean CoteOffice Manager, Regional Office	Montreal	Miss Marielle HarveyOfficer Manager, Headquarters	Ottawa	Mrs. Georgette Lajoie
January 23, 1979


Mr. Woolliams: With reference to the item Professional and Special Services at page 13-32 of the 1978-79 Estimates for the Law Reform Commission of Canada (a) what specifically are the (i) Professional services (ii) Special services (b) to whom would the expenditure of $1,035,000 be paid (c) what necessitates an increase of $85,000 over the previous year for this purpose?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Justice):: (a) (i) Professional services covers the work in legal research and related disciplines and management expertise in operations and communications supplied to the commission, (ii) Special services includes translation, computer services, temporary office assistance, editorial service and service fees charged by Supply and Services Canada.
(b)	The major part of the $1,035,000, about nine tenths, would be paid to consultants, most having qualifications in law with a few having special competence in medicine, ethics, sociology and psychology, and other expertise necessary to the research program. Of the remaining one tenth, about half would be paid for the services of professional translators and the rest to suppliers of miscellaneous services such as computing and temporary office assistance and to Supply and Services Canada.
(c)	The increase of $85,000 (i.e., 9 per cent) over the previous year is made necessary because of cost increases.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



POINT OF ORDER


Henry Perrin Beatty: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have taken the opportunity to look at the list of answers to questions on the order paper which was tabled today. On a number of occasions 1 have brought to the attention of the parliamentary secretary the fact that a number of questions of mine have been sitting on the order paper, some of them in one incarnation or another, since January 26, 1978. We are just coming up to a year now for two of them.
If the parliamentary secretary has any justification for his ineptitude in delaying his response to these questions, if he feels that to do so is too costly or if he feels it is too time consuming to do so, or if it is simply that he feels incapable of doing his job and getting the officials in the various departments to supply him with the information, or if he can otherwise justify my doing so, I will withdraw those questions
Railways
that I have on the order paper. I would like his guidance on this matter.
I would point out to the parliamentary secretary that the House has now waited a further month since Christmas yet not a single response has been made to these questions, many of which have been on the order paper for many months and some for almost a year. Unless there is some indication from him that he is prepared to give the House an adequate explanation of his refusal to do his job, or that he intends to advance reasonable arguments to persuade me that I should withdraw the questions, I intend on a regular basis to bring this matter to the parliamentary secretary's attention at this time in our proceedings until some progress is made.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to please everybody. Today Canadians will realize that we have made an exceptional effort. We have answered some hundred questions and I do not appreciate the hon. member's complaints about the work we, on this side of the House, accomplish. Mr. Speaker, on many occasions I have had the opportunity to express my opinion on the hon. member's reactions. I strongly invite him to read not only the list of the numbers tabled today, but also the answers to the numerous questions asked. It will add to his culture. As for the rest, I urge him to be patient.



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26   RAILWAYS PRAIRIE RAIL ACTION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the serious threat to western rural communities and the farmer-owned elevator system as a result of recommendations contained in the Prairie Rail Action Committee report which go far beyond the committee's terms of reference in at least two instances; and also because the committee recommends the abandonment of 1,416 miles of rail lines based on conclusions arising out of inadequate, inappropriate and insufficient evidence, and fails to give sufficient weight to the evidence for the retention of these rail lines; all of which makes it urgent that the Prairie Rail Action Committee report be discussed in parliament forthwith so that the government can indicate its intentions and members can express their views with respect to the committee's recommendations.

January 23, 1979
Railways


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member gave the Chair notice of his intention to make this application pursuant to Standing Order 26 for permission, in accordance with that Standing Order, to move the adjournment of the House for consideration of a matter of great urgency as defined in the language of that Standing Order.
It was evident from the tenor of the question period today and the motions put forward pursuant to Standing Order 43 that the hon. member's position enjoys rather widespread interest in the House. It is clear from the supporting documentation which the hon. member put forward that the matter has been of concern to several members of the House for quite some time.
That may come to his assistance and provide moral support for his cause in this particular instance but, unfortunately, it does not help him much in attempting to proceed pursuant to Standing Order 26 because the language of the Standing Order indicates that the Chair must take into account other opportunities to discuss the matter. The hon. member will recognize that that may mean future opportunities. I think it also means past opportunities. The House has not debated the matter extensively, but there certainly have been a number of opportunities in the past to disagree with the deliberations or the findings of the Prairie Rail Action Committee. Whether those have been adequate enough is something for the hon. member to discuss.
Whether the hon. member, or other hon. members, agrees or disagrees with the terms of reference of the committee, its deliberations or its fundings remains essentially a matter of disagreement and not, in my opinion, an ideal subject for an application pursuant to Standing Order 26. I should turn to the language of Standing Order 26 (16) which is at page 22 of the Standing Orders:
The right to move the adjournment of the House for the above purposes is subject to the following conditions:
(a) The matter proposed for discussion must relate to a genuine emergency,
calling for immediate and urgent consideration;
I do not want to be too precise in the application of the term "genuine emergency", but it does seem to me that a genuine emergency ought not to be the subject of a difference of opinion. It seems to me that in using Standing Order 26 we ought pretty well-I do not want to limit this entirely for the future-to be dealing with situations the emergent nature of which is not a matter of opinion or disagreement.
The hon. member takes issue, as do other hon. members, with the conclusions of the Prairie Rail Action Committee. However, whether the deliberations and conclusions of that committee, as an open body performing in public, could ever be constituted as an emergency within the terms of the Standing Order leaves me greatly in doubt.
Finally, it was indicated today in answers to questions put on this subject that the Prairie Rail Action Committee does not in itself have authority to implement its decisions but, rather, is an advisory board of some sort. All of its recommen-

dations will have to go to another body, the Canadian Transport Commission, before any final decisions can be taken because that is the body which has the authority. Whether parliament will have to support that with other measures in the House I do not know at this time. If so, that would certainly give the hon. member and other hon. members an opportunity, in the first place, to appear before the commission and, in the second place, to debate the measures which would have to be taken if the commission does in fact go on to decide that these lines should be closed. In any case, it seems to me that the hon. member will have ample opportunity to make the representations which he makes known now before that commission and, in turn, before parliament if parliament does have to take action.
I simply say, therefore, that as long as the matter remains one of ongoing public activities, while the hon. member may disagree violently with the deliberations and the conclusions of the committee, it seems to me that disagreements of that sort ought not to be the subjects of Standing Order 26 applications. Such applications should be reserved for factual emergencies. The question of whether there is a difference of opinion about what ought to be done in an emergency might remain, but at least the emergency should not be something which is subject to judgment or difference of opinion.
Therefore, on the face of it I would indicate that in my opinion Standing Order 26 does not apply to this situation.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (for the Prime Minister) moved: that Bill C-35, respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today provides for a number of improvements in the organization of the Government of Canada which have been recommended and supported by those in the sectors concerned.
Part I provides for the establishment of a separate department of fisheries and oceans, fulfilling a commitment made by this government and underlining the priority we attach to enhancing the Canadian fishery. The priority has been demonstrated in decisive government action to extend fishery jurisdiction to 200 miles, coupled with carefully planned management and conservation measures which have opened up a new era of fishery stability and prosperity.
By way of example, the over-all sea fish catch in 1978 of approximately 1.3 million metric tons is worth an estimated
January 23, 1979

$624 million, an increase in value of 37 per cent over the previous year.
On the Atlantic coast, despite necessary conservation measures and catch restrictions, fishermen's incomes have increased 50 per cent in recent years. There is every reason to believe that this improving trend will continue well into the 1980s.
The future of the fishing industry also augurs well on the Pacific coast, where the federal government, in co-operation with the government of British Columbia, has embarked on a massive salmon enhancement program which eventually will double the amount of salmon produced in that province. There is also the prospect of a fourfold increase in groundfish catches off the Pacific coast by the 1990s. The new organization proposed in this bill will provide a strengthened basis on which to continue and extend these efforts.
The minister of fisheries and oceans is to have responsibility for seacoast and inland fisheries, fishing and recreational harbours, hydrography and marine sciences and the co-ordination of the policies and programs of the Government of Canada respecting oceans. These responsibilities provide for a comprehensive approach to fisheries and oceans issues, recognize the need for a sound scientific base both for the development of a modern fishery and to underpin our other ocean responsibilities, and establish a focal point to co-ordinate our marine policies and programs which are taking on increasing importance.
Part II of the bill provides for the amendment or repeal of certain sections of the Fisheries Research Board Act to allow that board to be replaced by a new fisheries and oceans research advisory council. The function of the council will be to advise the minister of fisheries and oceans on all matters the minister may refer to it relating to fisheries research and the marine sciences, including technological developments in those fields; the scope and adequacy of the science policies and programs of the department of fisheries and oceans, having regard to the duties and functions of that department and the science policies and international obligations of the Government of Canada; and the co-ordination of research and development programs in the fields of fishery research and the marine sciences.
The council will provide an outside source of advice to the minister on the scientific activities of the department of fisheries and oceans, and for that purpose its membership will be broadened to include representatives from other industries and departments which have a specialized interest in the marine sciences as well as representatives of educational institutions and the general public.
Fishermen across the country have indicated their strong support for these measures to establish a separate department and revitalized council, and I am pleased to recommend these proposals to the House.
The intent of Part III is to clarify and update the mandate of the Department of the Environment, which remains following the separation of fisheries, and to the underline that its first responsibility is the preservation and enhancement of
Government Organization
environmental quality. The bill strengthens the ability of the minister responsible for the environment, to ensure that other federal departments and agencies, which have environmental protection powers as necessary parts of their specific responsibilities use those powers in a way that is consistent and meets certain basic environmental standards.
This part also empowers the minister to enter into agreements with the provinces for the administration of environmental programs. This underlines the intention of the government to minimize federal-provincial duplication and to rely to the maximum extent possible on the provinces for the administration of environmental programs. This concept, together with the strengthened responsibility for co-ordination and setting standards for the environmental activities of other federal departments and agencies, is fundamental to the new mandate of the Department of the Environment.
The government remains firmly committed to act effectively, in concert with the provinces, to preserve and enhance the quality of our environment for the benefit of all Canadians. The provisions now before the House strengthen the ability of the minister of the environment to lead this process.
Part IV of this bill is a technical amendment which allows the staff of Canadian Patents and Developments Limited to continue to receive coverage under the Public Service Superannuation Act and the flying accident compensation regulations made pursuant to the Aeronautics Act.
The purpose of Part V is to transfer the responsibilities of the representation commissioner to the chief electoral officer. The only person to occupy the post of representation commissioner, Mr. Nelson J. Castonguay, retired at the end of 1978 after a long and distinguished career in the Government of Canada, including 17 years as chief electoral officer and 15 years as representation commissioner. Mr. Castonguay has played the leading role in the success of our present system of the readjustment of electoral boudaries by independent commissions, and on behalf of the government I congratulate him for his achievement.
I have had the opportunity, as have other members of the House of Commons, to work with Mr. Castonguay, and we know the integrity, competence and skill with which he discharged his responsibilities, first as chief electoral officer and later as representation commissioner.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Castonguay has in the past recommended to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections that the responsibilities of the representation commissioner be transferred to the chief electoral officer, another servant of parliament who also has the independence and experience required. Many of the significant responsibilities once accruing to the representation commissioner have now been carried out, and the major remaining duties of the office arise only in approximately two years in every ten when electoral boundaries are readjusted. It thus seems timely and

January 23, 1979
Government Organization
appropriate to rationalize the responsibilities of the two independent offices responsible for matters so crucial to democratic elections in Canada.
Parts VI to IX of the bill contain essentially technical amendments to the constitutive acts of the Medical Research Council, National Research Council, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. The amendments remove the requirement in each of these acts that all staff appointments carry the specific approval of the minister. The heads of the councils agree that this requirement is an unnecessary involvement of the minister in the day to day administration of the councils.
Part X amends the Parliamentary Secretaries Act to correct the current wording in that act which ties the maximum number of parliamentary secretaries that may hold office to the number of ministers holding office at any given time. This means that if the maximum number of parliamentary secretaries are holding office when a minister resigns, one of those parliamentary secretaries must resign, potentially creating a situation where the House would lose access not only to a minister but also to his parliamentary secretary at the same time. The amendment would provide that the maximum number of parliamentary secretaries is set at the time of appointment and so would not be affected by a subsequent resignation of a minister. This involves no increase in the maximum number of parliamentary secretaries that may be appointed.
Finally, Part XI of the bill contains a number of technical and general amendments consequential on the division of the Department of Fisheries and the Environment.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, these are the basic principles and intent underlying each of the parts of this bill. The measures contained in this legislation carry the support of Canadians in the areas affected. These measures sharpen the tools we have to provide better government for all Canadians. While I welcome and will give careful consideration to any improvements in the present bill that hon. members may wish to propose, I would hope that members on both sides would agree that the bill should proceed without delay. It is in this spirit that I have outlined the substance of the bill for the House with a minimum of argumentation. 1 hope that all hon. members will join in this spirit as the debate proceeds.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to follow the government House leader, particularly after having heard his last statement that it is his wish, desire and hope that this bill proceed with dispatch. Let me point out that he has conveniently forgotten that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made a promise back in 1974 about the need to separate fisheries in the department and create a full, complete and worth-while department of fisheries. Therefore, what the government House leader has done at this time is to touch a very sore point with members on this side of the House, not only in our party but in all opposition parties.

I was very pleased to note that there is a new thrust by the government in terms of fisheries and environment and that the government intends to proceed in a spirit of consultation and co-operation rather than confrontation which seems to have been the path of pursuit for which this government is so famous.
I join the government House leader in congratulating Mr. Nelson Castonguay for the job he has done in the past. I am pleased to say that every commendation should go his way for his sincerity and the assistance he has given to members from all sides of the House, as well as for his dedication to duty.
Regarding what Mr. Speaker has indicated, namely that this bill after second reading should be sent to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, may I say that that seems fair, but I have a better suggestion to make to the minister in light of the fact that this bill deals primarily with fisheries and the environment. Therefore, I think it would be more in keeping with that thrust, and after such an unwarranted and undue delay, that the government House leader ensure that the bill is directed to the proper place. It is my view that all the other points which the minister made in his introductory remarks regarding the 11 parts of the bill are not that significant in terms of urgency. Therefore, I hope that those of us who come from the Atlantic provinces and from the west coast and who, over the years, have been hammering home the fact that the government has shown several shortcomings with regard to its fisheries policy-no derogatory connotation is to be attached to the present minister-will receive an explanation and elaboration.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I know that the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) (Mrs. Campagnolo), who should be directing her attention to Loto Canada, wishes to intervene. I hope the minister takes that advice and direction, which she seldom ever takes. I notice the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) is nodding his head in the affirmative, from which I conclude that the government House leader has received the necessary direction from the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment that when this bill receives second reading it be sent to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
We are back after the Christmas break, and I think we are all rested. I sincerely wish everyone the best of health. I have not had that myself. Perhaps many hon. members missed me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: But I was absent for a reason. Now I am back waiting to shake hands with my colleagues.
I would like to wish hon. members opposite success in the forthcoming election, but I cannot go that far because many Canadians, and I, wonder what devious schemes the Prime Minister is planning in order to become the darling of Canadians once again. In my view, that is an impossible task. Hon.
January 23, 1979

members opposite hope that he will come up with the required miracles, but it is an impossible task.


An hon. Member:: Why?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Because of the alienation, frustration, disgust, despair, fear, hopelessness, insincerity, and lack of confidence in the present administration. I am looking at the government House leader. He knows that I speak sincerely. The lack of confidence in the administration under which Canadians are living is too deeply rooted, because incompetence and mismanagement are the hallmarks of the present administration.
Bill C-35 is entitled as follows:
An act respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto.
It is misleading, but it could have been laudable and commendable if the portion reading "and matters related or incidental thereto" could have been interpreted as dealing with the reorganization of the government's attitude, thinking and initiative. In my view, such a reorganization would reduce and minimize the suffering and hardship which stem from high unemployment, high inflation and no growth. Reorganization by itself is not earth-shaking and it is not a panacea. The end result is what is important. In other words, what does the government intend to accomplish by reorganization? More important, in what direction must the government go in order to bring about a policy or principle for the benefit of Canadians?
Other than the sections dealing with fisheries and the environment, the bill is relatively silent. We want to see it go before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry in order to find out what is going on in the reorganization sector of the government. In the past the government's view regarding reorganization has been the solution rather than a first step toward the solution and/or solutions. I should like to put on record a few examples respecting reorganization which perhaps have been stated before. I should like to present five examples for the edification of the House.
First, in 1971 the department of fisheries and forestry was submerged in a new department of the environment. In 1974 the minister of state was given fisheries responsibilities within the department of the environment. In 1976 the department attempted reintegration under the name of the Department of Fisheries and the Environment and only one minister. The current minister intends to create a separate department of fisheries and oceans, with the department of the environment going its own way. By going through no less than four reorganizations, the federal management of these policy areas has returned to an organizational status remarkably similar to that prevailing prior to 1971. It is a sort of turnabout.
The second example deals with the ministry of state for urban affairs. The Ministry of State for Urban Affairs was created in 1971 to respond to accelerating urbanization and its resulting problems. Although no one could claim these problems have been solved, the ministry will be disbanded within
Government Organization
approximately six months. Both urbanization and its resulting problems remain; it is the organization which changed.
The third example involves the Ministry of State for Science and Technology, also created in 1971. In addition to the development of federal policies on science and technology, the ministry was directed to co-ordinate existing federal science policies. While such policy development and co-ordination is no less urgent today, in its seven-year history the ministry has had six ministers, three of whom have had other ministerial responsibilities. When we think of the word reorganization , we must determine the aims and the direction the government intends to pursue in order to bring about a policy and principle for the benefit of Canadians.
The fourth example deals with the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It was reorganized in 1977 to create the enterprise development program, which was designed to coordinate distribution of all the department's industrial support funds. The enterprise development program now distributes a lesser amount of money than the sum distributed by its predecessors.
The fifth example involves the office of the comptroller of the treasury which was disbanded in 1969. The comptroller s duties included management of disbursements from consolidated revenue, provision of accounting services and the preparation of cash forecasts. In 1978 the government created the office of Comptroller General allied with the Treasury Board. His duties include the development of expenditure control systems and related administrative practices. The two comptrollers' job descriptions are sufficiently similar to raise a question as to whether the government has once again reorganized itself back to where it started.
Fast but not least, we have the big "super minister". I think of him as being the former minister responsible for the Treasury Board. I had occasion to shadow him with some success when he was involved with immigration, labour, manpower and unemployment insurance. Now we have a big super minister who will somehow or other rescue the government from the perils which it faces every day. I wonder what the priorities of the government are.


Mrs. Sauve:: We do not have any.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I hear an hon. member opposite indicating that they do not have any. I am the first one to agree with that.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That was said by the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve).


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Was that the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve)?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Yes.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It should be documented and recorded that they have no priorities. I will pretend I did not hear that and let it go by the board.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The minister withdraws that remark.

January 23, 1979
Government Organization


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It is too late to withdraw a statement which was heard by all hon. members on this side of the House. The government House leader is amazing. When he rose, I looked at him with a great deal of respect. I was hoping for words of wisdom, which I did not hear. I did not interrupt him because I knew he respected me. He knows my job, as well as the jobs of all hon. members. All of a sudden he has become childish. The Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) does not want me to carry on with my speech. How shameful. What kind of conduct is this?
I was asking where the priorities of the government were. Hon. members on this side of the House thought that Bill C-9 was the big bill, the one respecting public referanda in Canada. Probably it is being delayed now for some sinister political motive. Perhaps the government is waiting for some convenient time. That is what I call posturing. We saw the Prime Minister posturing yesterday. I will not dwell on that, except to say that hon. members on this side of the House wish Their Excellencies good health and every good wish for the very onerous job which they have taken upon themselves for the benefit of Canadians.
I should like to know what has happened to Bill C-27. The government House leader knows what it is all about, namely, setting up a Crown corporation in respect of the Post Office Department. Are we not concerned about the problems of which we have been reading of late in terms of post office management and CUPW? Is this government afraid of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) who is our critic in respect of the post office? He has done an excellent job of trying to rap this government over the head in order to bring about some sense in terms of needless foot dragging, misunderstandings and statements that were uncalled for and unwarranted by the present Postmaster General (Mr. Lamontagne).
What has happened regarding Bill C-29? I arrived late, Mr. Speaker, but I understand hon. members were talking about housing and CMHC. There is a big problem in existence in this regard. Has the government given us its priorities in respect of that particular matter, or is this government again afraid of the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott) who has been doing an excellent job as our housing critic, and who in turn would relish an opportunity to rake this government over the coals because of its insensitivity regarding the needs of Canadians for housing? In any event, we have this list, but we do not know where the government's priorities lie. The Minister of Communications says they do not have any. That is a very revealing statement. Not only is it revealing, it is alarming.
The government House leader went through the various parts of this bill and I think it would be a good idea for me to go through it again. I think he said there were 11 different parts. I am afraid I do not know if that is accurate, but one cannot be expected to know everything that happens around

here. We should at least be able to expect leadership from this government, but even that is lacking 99 times out of 100.
The first part deals with the new proposed department of fisheries and oceans. The second part deals with the proposed fisheries and oceans research advisory council. The third part relates to the Department of the Environment. The fourth part relates to Canadian Patents and Development Limited. The fifth part deals with the representation commissioner to whom we just paid tribute, Mr. Castonguay. There is then reference to the Medical Research Council, and surely the minister must realize that we will have something to say in that regard, particularly in view of the government's tunnel vision in the past and for the future in respect of research.
Those same remarks could be applied to the next part regarding the National Research Council, the seventh item in this omnibus bill. The eighth item is the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, followed by the ninth item, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. The government can expect to hear from us on this side regarding that. There are several members who want to know what is taking place in respect of social services in this country, and particularly what role this government feels women should be playing. We are interested in knowing the role the government sees for women not only in the House of Commons, where we are gradually moving towards more fair and meaningful representation, but specifically outside this place.
The second last part deals with parliamentary secretaries. I know my House leader will have something to say in this regard because this relates again to reform of the rules and guidelines within which this august body operates.
The last part in this bill brings about some direction regarding the Department of Fisheries and the Environment.
What bothers me and makes me question the government's sincerity with respect to this bill is clause 35 relating to the coming into force. I always look to see what a bill states in respect of when the law shall come into force because that gives some indication of its importance and the need for immediate action. However, in this case let me read what is said by this coming into force clause, and this will indicate why I question the sincerity of the government in terms of moving this bill forward expeditiously. Clause 35 states:
This act on any part thereof, except part IV, shall come into force on a day or days to be fixed by proclamation.
Part IV is that part in relation to Canadian Patents and Development Limited about which I will have something to say a little later.
What bothers me is the suggestion that this bill will come into force at some date in the future to be selected by the government. It can use this measure for its own political advantage. For example, it can proclaim the measure during an election campaign giving the Minister of Fisheries, and perhaps the Minister of the Environment, the opportunity of putting out a press release announcing the establishment of a separate department of fisheries. This press release will be sent to the Atlantic provinces and the west coast pointing out what
January 23, 1979

the government has done for the people in those areas. It will no doubt suggest that a separate department is required and the government has now established it. It will invite the people to trust the government because it is with the government that their future hopes lie.
I indicated earlier that in 1974 there was a promise regarding the establishment of a separate ministry. If I am wrong I am sure the government House leader will be the first to stand and challenge me. The Prime Minister promised then to establish such a separate ministry. I am now asking why there has been this dragging of the feet, this hanky panky, hesitation and indecision relating to the introduction of this bill.
This omnibus bill is like "Catch 22" and gives members of the opposition the opportunity to register their concerns about these areas with which this proposed legislation deals. We are thankful for that opportunity, but I should like to ask this simple question. If it is so important that we bring about this separate ministry, why do we now have an omnibus bill covering a number of items that are not of immediate concern?
A separate bill should have been brought forward to deal with this one item relating to the separation of fisheries as a separate department. That measure should have been divorced from this omnibus bill. Had that been the case the minister might well have received the expeditious passage he requested earlier. Members on this side of the House have taken an interest in this idea for some time. The major purpose indicated by the government House leader is to create a separate and distinct department of fisheries and oceans. Fisheries has been combined with environment since 1970. As I said in 1970, the present Prime Minister needlessly ended the existence of a separate department of fisheries. During the 1974 election campaign he promised to recreate a separate department, but like too many other promises this government makes it was not kept.
It has taken this government nearly five years to act on this promise. The hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) and the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) have had private members' bills on the order paper for years begging this government to bring about what we are attempting by this bill.
Except for some clarification in respect of the duties of the Minister of the Environment, Bill C-35 is virtually a carbon copy of Bill C-65 which was introduced in a hurry on the second last sitting day before the recess last summer. This would indicate that the government only wanted to bring attention to the matter for the purposes of an upcoming election. However, when the election did not materialize the government did not reintroduce the bill at the first opportunity. Consequently there is some doubt as to whether the Liberal government is sincere in wanting this bill passed. I notice the minister of fisheries shaking his head in a negative fashion, but the facts speak for themselves. We have consistently argued the need for a separate department of fisheries. The Canadian fisheries is a far too important economic resource to be buried in a combined department. There will be
Government Organization
a number of members on this side of the House more efficient and with more expertise than I who will put forth their concerns on this matter.
What about the environment? The duties of the Minister of the Environment are clarified and enlarged. The bill requires that the minister undertake impact assessments of federal projects. While recognizing that this is the first occasion that the government has sought to put the requirement for impact assessment into law, this section, 6(l)(a)(i), falls far short of our objective on this side of the House. For instance, under this section impact assessment of activities in the federal jurisdiction is not required except if they are federal projects. This would mean that an impact assessment of drilling in the eastern Arctic, for instance, would not have been required had this bill superseded the environmental assessment and review process earlier this year.
Also, there is no requirement for the assessment procedure to have hearings, nor for the assessment to follow any of the other rules of natural justice. This is extremely important, and there will be many questions asked even though this is the part with which we are particularly concerned, and with which we are pleased the government will be following through on once the bill gets to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry. Once again, there will be questions from members who are concerned with the environment and who must, of necessity, become concerned with this bill.
The next matter is Canadian Patents and Development Limited. This bill also brings employees of the Canadian Patents and Development Limited under the Public Service Superannuation Act. It is very interesting that this provision should appear in this bill-it was also in Bill C-65 in the last session-rather than in Bill C-12 which deals specifically with public service pensions. I wonder why the government made this move to bring this particular company into this omnibus bill. The Treasury Board claims, as I understand it, that it is coincidental and that there is nothing sinister about the matter. I need proof, and that is why it is necessary to get bills into committee where we can find out the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. In bringing this particular company into the bill, it gives the appearance once again of sloppy management on the part of the government.
While Treasury Board is busy drafting amendments to the various public service pension plans in order to deal with criticisms about their actuarial soundness, the Prime Minister's office is working independently on amendments to expand the number of persons covered by public service pension plans.
I hope that the government House leader or whoever carries this bill into committee will be able to answer a number of questions, because I have some and I would like to place them on paper for the benefit of the government. One such question is whether they are serious about this provision, and therefore, wanting to make sure it is contained in a bill that will be passed, they did not put it in Bill C-12 because they did not take that bill seriously. Or alternatively, did they put this

January 23, 1979
Government Organization
provision in Bill C-35 because they are not serious about it and wanted to put it in a bill which they do not intend to proceed with, whereas they did intend to proceed with Bill C-12?
The only reason Bill C-12 is not before the House now is because I took it upon myself to act as the opposition House leader and ask the government House leader a couple of questions. I suppose the House leader was surprised to hear me say that before we proceeded with this very contentious bill directed toward all the people of Canada, we would want to hear witnesses, particularly PIPS, the Professional Institute of the Public Service, the Tomenson-Alexander management firm, representatives of the mounted police and all those directly affected by what the government was proposing. This was within the trade union movement. Over and above that, we also wanted to hear from the private sector in order to determine whether or not the government was moving in the right direction with regard to Bill C-12.
Another question we have with regard to this particular provision is: What effect will this provision have on the actuarial soundness of the public service superannuation account? Was this potential change taken into consideration when the chief actuary was making his actuarial calculations with regard to the public service superannuation account and the supplementary retirement benefits account for purposes of the changes proposed in Bill C-12, which is the indexation bill? In fact, was the Treasury Board even consulted on this matter?
I note that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Buchanan) is not here at this particular time, and I will make no derogatory remarks in that regard. But surely this is a matter in which he should have some input. Why are new employees being incorporated at a time when the funding of public service pensions has been so seriously questioned?
No doubt the government House leader through his staff will have taken notice of all the questions I have asked so that he may have all the answers in committee and will say that the hon. member was wrong, that he does not understand the bill, but that he does have some legitimate questions and here are the answers which he is attempting to seek.
Another question I have is: Why is it thought to be appropriate to incorporate Canadian Patents and Development Limited employees into the Public Service Superannuation Act and not the employees of certain other Crown corporations, such as CNR or Air Canada? What is the justification for this?
I would like to deal now with the representation commissioner aspect of this bill, and we have heard the explanation by the minister in this regard. I believe there was a big debate in 1963 by a member I did not know named Mr. Pickersgill. I believe he carried that thing through by way of resolution. The government House leader wants to take credit for it, but the portion I read did not refer to him. The most important contribution to that debate was by Mr. Pickersgill and the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).

As was stated, the bill abolishes the representation commissioner and brings his duties, such as defining electoral boundaries, under the chief electoral officer. In 1963 the job was split into two positions, with the chief electoral officer at the time becoming the representation commissioner and a new chief electoral officer being appointed. Rumour has it that this was done to ease the chief electoral officer out of his job. However, since the representation commissioner has, as was pointed out by the government House leader, little if anything to do between each census, it does not make sense to have two positions. Therefore, in order to save money the jobs are being combined again under the chief electoral officer.
Again, once this sort of thing is put into focus, there will be members who will have questions with respect to the whole issue of representation and the duties, obligations and rights which come under the chief electoral officer. Whatever the true motives might have been for establishing an independent representation commissioner in 1963, it was a proposal that we supported, and in fact we had been arguing for an independent commissioner for some time. That is why I can recall reading the very significant questions and statements made by the right hon. gentleman for Prince Albert and the replies. I regret that I was not around during Mr. Pickergill's representations and his approach to answering these questions. I am sorry that I did not see anything there by the minister. Maybe he was a backbencher in those days and was not recognized except for some meaningless intervention.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I did the negotiation with your leader of the day on that subject.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I was going to ask why the government no longer believes it necessary to have a full time independent representation commissioner. Can the job be handled adequately on a part-time basis? These are some of the question we will have to ask.
Another thing we are concerned about is research. I do not want to get involved in this particularly because other members of this party are eager to jump in and condemn the government for its tunnel vision approach to research and science. This has resulted in many talented young people and people with expertise fleeing the country. This is one of the least understandable and at the same time one of the most important of the government's measures and I condemn them for it. We all know what will happen as a result of this tunnel vision.
The bill allows the Medical Research Council, the National Research Council, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council and the Social Science and Humanities Research Council to appoint and classify staff without ministerial approval. That is a very significant step and a very significant statement and the government House leader says it is what he wants. I must ask, however, what mechanisms are being put in place to ensure that this appointment and classification authority will not be abused. We have already seen how classification has been handled in the public service when it
January 23, 1979

has been delegated. I am talking about waste, Mr. Speaker. Misclassification and particularly overclassification which this government has allowed to proceed year after year through neglect, costs $75 million per year today.
I would just say, Mr. Speaker, that during my absence the President of the Treasury Board laid on the table the findings of the classification study. He did not have the courtesy to follow the practice of his predecessor who indicated that he would not only table this report but would also give us the solutions which the government found it necessary to implement in order to bring about the savings which are sorely needed to reduce government waste.
We know that there are incentives in the present system which lead to consistent overclassification, and we will get into that area as soon as we get the minister's estimates. I do not think that we are going to get any answers from the government on how they propose to save some $75 million on overclassifications. Can the government assure us that this will not also happen in the appointment and classification of positions in the research councils? Once again they have delegated the authority.
We are now looking into the whole question of Crown corporations, their conduct, their thrust and initiatives. I hope that the omnibus bill dealing with Crown corporations will soon come before the House. I know it will not come before the election, of course, because the government does not care about this. They would let the Crown corporations carry on as they are doing even though some of them have a history of throwing the taxpayers' money down the drain and of pursuing questionable practices to the disadvantage of the public.
I return to my concern about the government's tunnel vision regarding these councils and its lack of understanding of them. Mr. Speaker, there are priorities and priorities. When it comes to the research and development that affects in particular the Medical Research Council and the National Research Council, we wonder whether government is on the right track in delegating its authority.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I must say that the bill makes an interesting change with regard to parliamentary secretaries. Subsection 2(2) of the Parliamentary Secretaries Act at present reads as follows:
(2) There shall not be at any one time more parliamentary secretaries than the number of ministers who hold offices for which salaries are provided in section 4 of the Salaries Act.
Clause 31 of the bill provides that this section shall now read as follows:
(2) There shall not be appointed more parliamentary secretaries than the number of ministers who hold offices for which salaries are provided in section 4 of the Salaries Act.
The purpose of the amendment is to clean up an anomaly in the act. At present the act requires that if a minister resigns then a parliamentary secretary must also resign. There cannot at any time be more parliamentary secretaries than there are ministers. The amendment does not allow for an increase in the number of parliamentary secretaries but rather fixes the number at the time of appointment.
Government Organization
An important point which 1 think goes to the root of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that the resignation of a minister would no longer require the resignation of a parliamentary secretary and therefore, as a result of this amendment, there could be more parliamentary secretaries than ministers.
I think I have put the position of my party on several matters of concern before the House. I do not intend to speak longer because I know there are other members on this side of the House, including members of the New Democratic Party, who wish to speak on matters that they find either satisfactory or objectionable in the bill.
I cannot give the government House leader the assurance of quick passage that he is seeking for the bill, however. We do not intend to filibuster the bill, but I feel that if he were sincere about this whole matter he would have included the questions of the fisheries and the environment. It is my view that the government is not sincere and has thrown a lot of other things into the bill. We have no alternative in this party but to take a stand, having been given this opportunity to register our concerns on behalf of constituents in all regions of the country.


Mr. Fonse Faour (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, as has already been stated eloquently by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) this bill deals with the organization of the Government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto. I do not presume to be able to comment on every aspect of this bill and there are others in my party who will comment on parts of the bill of particular concern to them.
I was interested in the approach of the hon. member for Hamilton West to the bill in that he totally looked to the past and did not present any forward looking ideas on behalf of his party. It rather frightens me that he represents a party that hopes to form the government eventually. From my point of view, representing the part of the country that I do, a party which looks to the past-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege and reluctantly, because I chastised the government House leader for intervening when I was speaking. I wish the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Faour) would not misquote me or take my remarks out of context. On a number of occasions I emphasized that other speakers for this party who had special expertise would deal with their areas of interest. The hon. member himself indicated that he did not have all the expertise required to deal with this bill and I accepted that. I also indicated to the House, with no shame whatsoever, that speakers to follow me would place the position of this party on the record with respect to this omnibus bill.
That may be a simple question of privilege. However, I just want to let some of the new members know that they should pay more attention when a lead-off speaker speaks, so that they will get some idea of what is going on.
2472

January 23, 1979
Government Organization


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I accept the point of clarification. It is not really a question of privilege.


Alphonsus Faour: Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that as lead speaker for his party and as lead speaker for my party, the comments should be fairly general. I understood his comments should point to his party's proposals and ideas as to how this bill should be written. That is what my comments were about.
I was saying that in the area of fishery development, if the Conservative party takes power after the next election, with their backward looking views in this area we may be back to the fishing admiral days. If anyone knows Newfoundland history, they will know that was one of the most repressive types of arrangements in our history. It went out with the end of the eighteenth century.
I am going to deal with Parts I and II of this bill. Part I sets up a separate department of fisheries and oceans. Part II establishes a fisheries and oceans research advisory council. As I mentioned, other members of my party will deal with other sections of the bill.
We in this party support the setting up of a separate department of fisheries and oceans. As has been pointed out, it reflects a campaign promise on the part of the government made in 1974 to set up a separate department of fisheries. It is interesting the government is getting around to it just before the coming election. The government has belatedly recognized the proper emphasis that should be placed on the fishery and the importance of the fishery to the economy of this country.
In Newfoundland there are some 27,000 fishermen prosecuting the fishery. In Newfoundland, fishery processing involves some 8,000 man-years of work. To give a further indication of the size of the fishery in Newfoundland, in 1978 some 430,000 tonnes were harvested with a value of $106 million. Nationally some 66,000 fishermen are involved in the fishery. The value to Canada nationally was close to half a billion dollars, representing a catch of 1 'k million tonnes of fish. This indicates that the fishery is of extreme importance to this country. By setting up this separate department the government is only now recognizing this fact by its actions and not just by its words.
This new department must be concerned with fisheries development. In fisheries development, the department has a very powerful tool to shape not only the fishing industry but the communities and the social structure of the areas where the fishing process takes place. Our contention is that the department must move toward three basic areas. First, there has to be local or Canadian control of the industry. Second, there has to be maximum benefit established on the east coast to coastal communities. Third, we have to manage the stocks and issue licences in light of the social requirements and social problems that must be solved in the communities where the fishing industry is located.
I will begin by dealing with foreign investment in the fishery. This is becoming a serious problem on the west coast of this country. Foreign interest now control over 10 per cent

of the industry's assets on the west coast. The bulk of these foreign interests are in Japan. The frightening thing is not so much that 10 per cent is foreign-controlled, but that this 10 per cent has been acquired almost overnight.
The cause of this has been the lack of proper planning of the industry on the west coast. The west coast fishing industry, as with the industry on the east coast, should be an integral part of an industrial strategy or plan based on Canada's resources. Our leader said this when he was on the west coast last week. He pointed out that the cause of the problem of foreign investment is the lack of an industrial strategy.
The reason for the influx of Japanese capital with its resultant control is the fact that it has not been available locally. Canadian banks and lending institutions have been reluctant to make loans to canneries, fish processors and fishermen for years. We feel the government should, within the framework of an over-all industrial strategy, make sure that capital is available so that fish companies and individual fishermen do not have to go to foreign sources in order to obtain capital to develop their industry.
On the east coast, the government's record is a little better in this area. At least in one case the government used its licensing powers to ensure that valuable fish resources did not fall into the hands of foreigners. I refer specifically to the proposed takeover of the Ocean Harvesters processing plant in Harbour Grace, Newfoundland, by the Nord See group of West Germany. I applaud this approach on the part of the government and I hope this trend continues.
In their approach to the fisheries, the Tories would seem to give us investment at any cost. Certainly they pressured the federal government and the provincial government of Newfoundland for this type of investment. They supported the takeover by the West German company and generally have supported this sort of foreign intrusion into this Canadian resource which, in the long term, would not do anything for us. I applaud the government's approach to this question and hope the new department continues on this route. I am sure the present minister will ensure that it does.
Another area of concern is how development of the industry takes place. In the sixties, proposals for development were very capital intensive. There were plans and proposals for large freezer trawlers plying the Grand Banks and the east coast fishery. That, of course, was before the advent of the 200-mile limit. It was at a time when foreign countries had their massive capital intensive fleets on our offshore and were reaping great benefits.
Fisheries development must be considered with social development as well. The midshore and offshore fishery, which is a sort of capital intensive fishery that was recommended ten years ago and beyond, requires a centralized development. It requires the establishment of large cities and towns, large centres from where the fishery can be serviced and prosecuted. This tends to reinforce the deterioration of the small coastal rural communities, especially on the east coast of this country.
January 23, 1979

On the west coast, the fishery is fairly well developed. It has set patterns. However, a change must take place on the east coast. If not done in a careful manner, this change could destroy existing living patterns which have gone on for centuries and create much disruption in lifestyles.
The trend has changed in Newfoundland over the past few years. I submit the fishermen's union was a major influence. The federal Department of Fisheries recognized that development of the fisheries has to take place while considering the communities from which the fishery takes place. The Tories do not seem to be sensitive to these needs. They would prefer development to follow the needs of the big fish companies, not those of the fishermen in the rural communities.
It is important to develop the fishery in a way compatible with traditional patterns of life. It is important that change should not come about too fast. We should recognize that most of the fishermen on the east coast are part-time fishermen. Part of their income, perhaps the major part, comes from fishing during the summer, but during the winter they cut wood or engage in some other part-time job. There are few full-time fishermen in the Newfoundland context and due regard must be paid to this situation.
If the department concentrates on full-time fishermen, the social impact will be profound, particularly on young people about to enter the industry. Traditionally, sons begin work in the fishery with the help of their fathers. Many part-time fishermen in my riding have found it difficult to introduce their sons to the fishery. I trust the department will recognize the problem and come forward with proposals for suitable compensation during periods of dislocation.
In recent years licensing arrangements have begun to change traditional patterns in the fishing industry. We recognize the need for a forward-looking, coherent policy for the development of the fishery, but while restricted entry to the industry might be desirable in the long term, such a move toward an elite corps of fishermen would cause tremendous dislocation in the short term and could give rise to a great deal of unemployment and hardship affecting individual fishermen in coastal communities. It is most important to consider the realities which exist in these communities when making overall fisheries policy, and I am confident the new department will do this.
The licence freezes of the past few years have caused hardship. I recognize there is bound to be dislocation, but we must surely minimize the extent of that dislocation. Certain licences have been frozen for some time; I have in mind, especially, those required for lobster and certain species of groundfish. The part-time fishermen, who constitute a majority in the Atlantic region, have been hit hard, new entrants into the fishery have been hit hard, and the future of young people has become uncertain. Should they stay in their communities with the expectation that they can enter the fishery, or should they go to Alberta or Toronto, for instance, to seek jobs there?
Government Organization
These are serious questions and they must be dealt with; I trust the minister will consider them very carefully.
The new department, through its licensing policy, could have a tremendous impact on local conditions along the east coast. It could also have an important impact on the size of fish stocks. It is necessary to balance the social cost to communities against the benefits of conservation. By varying the number of fishermen engaged in the industry we could change the recovery rate among fish stocks. If fishing were completely cut out for one year, fish stocks would probably recover in one year, but what would be the effect upon thousands of fishermen? It seems to me that if we allowed unlimited entry to the fisheries, stocks would continue to decline; so the need for some sort of balance must be recognized, always bearing in mind the needs of the rural communities.
I should like to turn my attention for a few moments to the seal fishery and its relationship to the fishing industry in general. What impact do the seal herds have on fish stocks? It is estimated there are about 1.3 million seals in the herd along the east coast. Each seal eats about 15 pounds of fish a day on the average. I have done the arithmetic and this works out to approximately 3.2 million metric tons of fish a year consumed by the seal herd off the east coast. Looking at the total fish landings on the east coast last year we see they amounted to less than a million metric tons, so seals are right now consuming three times as much fish as Canadian fishermen are catching off the east coast.
The figures I have given are, of course, approximate because it is impossible to ascertain just how much fish seals eat. Nevertheless, the information is very valuable in terms of the annual irrational debate and also because of the fact that the minister seems in part to have given in to the protesters. This year the quota for the seal hunt has been set at a level which would see a small increase in the seal population, thereby endangering fish stocks even more. So another thing the department should seriously consider is whether in the light of the continuing controversy over the seal hunt it is the fishermen or the seals which will get the fish off the east coast. If the seal stocks increase, as the protesters would wish, many fishermen will be unable to make a living because the fish just won't be there. This is a decision which the new department will have to approach with some care. I trust the minister will give this matter his consideration. His record thus far has been good and I trust it will continue.
I turn, now, to part II of the bill. Under these provisions there is a proposal to change the name of the Fisheries Research Board to the Fisheries and Oceans Research Advisory Council. I will not comment on the board itself or the work it has done, but in my view the new reorganizing bill has one substantial flaw. In setting up the council the proposal totally neglects representation by fishermen themselves or by their organizations. Clause 4 of part II of Bill C-35 provides:
4. (1) The Council shall consist of a chairman and not more than 24 other members.
(2) A majority of the members of the Council shall be scientists.
80047 15'/2

January 23, 1979
Government Organization
Now we come to subclause (3), the subclause I am most concerned about:
(3) The members of the Council shall include persons from
(a)	departments, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada that have a specialized interest in the marine sciences;
(b)	universities and other educational institutions;
(c)	the fisheries industries and industries that have a specialized interest in the marine sciences; and
(d)	the general public.
Mr. Speaker, it could be said that the reference in subsection (d) to the general public having representation on the council might include fishermen and their organizations. But I suggest this is much too important a council to warrant the omission from its constitution of a specific reference to fishermen or their organizations. Let us face it, Mr. Speaker, the fishermen are the ones who will be directly affected by the recommendations this council will make. The council will be making recommendations in the area of quotas, fish stocks and so on, and it would appear to me to be essential that fishermen, fishermen's unions and fishermen's organizations should have a voice on this council, not just the industry or company representatives.
Over-all, Mr. Speaker, we support this move of the government to place the proper emphasis on the fishery by setting up this separate department of fisheries and oceans. There is much promise for the future of the fishery in this country, especially off the east coast, since the declaration of the 200-mile limit. Through this department the federal government in Ottawa has to provide leadership to the industry in two main areas, management and foreign relations. By properly managing and controlling fish stocks, quotas and the issuing of licences which permit entry into the fishery, the department can shape the whole face of the industry. It can have a big impact on the social fabric of coastal communities where the fishery takes place. This is something which I know the minister has approached before, and I think he is moving in the right direction on it.
However, the government has failed in the past with regard to the foreign relations aspect of its responsibilities involving fisheries. It took many years for the government in this country to match the efforts of small countries such as Iceland and Norway in extending our offshore jurisdiction. Iceland is a very tiny country with a population of probably not half that of the city of Ottawa, and it relies on fish perhaps even more than the city of Ottawa relies on government.


Mr. Hogan:: Impossible.


Alphonsus Faour: It took many years for this government to match the efforts of Iceland in extending jurisdiction over offshore fishery resources, and now that that has been done, I applaud it. But it came many years too late. Now, because of inaction in foreign markets, the Canadian fishing industry has been placed in a back seat position regarding a place in world markets. The problem is fairly simple: 85 per cent of our fish exports go to the United States, but Americans eat only about

nine pounds of fish per person per year. Europe and Japan, which are big fish-eating areas of the world, consume much larger amounts of fish, but we have a very small place in their markets. Part of the problem is tariffs. Part of the problem is that we cannot enter or find it difficult to enter markets because of tariff arrangements against processed fish. At this point in time we should be actively and aggressively pursuing new markets.
Right now we have an export advantage. As much as hon. members from time to time decry the devaluation of the dollar, with regard to export industries it is fairly evident that it is an advantage. The devaluation of the dollar of some 15 per cent in recent months is about the same as the tariff on processed fish entering the European Common Market, so at the present time we have an advantage. The devaluation of the dollar balances the tariff, so now is the time for us to be actively pursuing European markets. Because it is only by pursuing those markets and gaining a foothold in those markets for processed fish that we can have maximum benefit for the economies of the east and west coasts. In order to get maximum benefit for these economies there has to be the maximum amount of processing of fish at the local level.
I would like to quote from the report of the People's Commission on Unemployment. I have done this before. I want to quote from this report because I think it is a very good report. It contains a very good analysis of the Newfoundland economy in particular, but with regard to fisheries it applies to the industry nationally. One of the recommendations of the commission is found at page 103 of the report and reads as follows:
That a policy of total processing and packaging of our fish be implemented to provide more jobs here in Newfoundland, tariff restrictions notwithstanding.
Tariff restrictions are the main problem right now, but we can get around that by aggressive marketing policies, especially now when we have an advantage on the international market because of our devalued dollar.
I trust that this new department will look to the future of the fishery and will foster the future development of the industry in a way which will benefit people on the east coast- fishermen, processors, plant workers-and also fishermen on inland waters as well as on the west coast. Our party supports this move as a good reflection that the government recognizes the importance of the fishery to this country now.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, 1 welcome this opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-35. As the present minister is well aware, I think it is in the area of Marseilles, France, where people make a special dish. I believe they call it bouillabaisse. The minister will have to correct me on my pronunciation, but I think that is a rich fish stew which contains just about every type of fish which comes out of the sea. Bill C-35 could well be called bouillabaisse because it contains many words which apply to the Department of Fisheries and the Environment as well as many other items.
January 23, 1979

Nevertheless, I am pleased to note that the government has finally decided to re-establish a separate department of fisheries called the department of fisheries and oceans. The peril, however, in bringing forward this measure in an omnibus bill is that it could needlessly be delayed because of problems associated with other parts of it. In our view the part of Bill C-35 dealing with the establishment of a department of fisheries and oceans should have been brought forward separately and divorced from the other parts of the bill.
Actually, we should not be discussing the re-establishment of a separate department of fisheries at all. The fact that we are discussing this matter is a direct result of the Liberal government's having needlessly ended the existence of the department of fisheries in 1970. Having made that change, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) soon suffered some political remorse over what he had done because in the 1974 election campaign he promised to establish a separate department of fisheries. Five long years later it appears that this promise is finally coming to fruition. I add that this is somewhat typical of Liberal promises, especially campaign promises; they are long on words and short on action.
It should also be noted that this bill is very similar to Bill C-65, which was very hurriedly introduced on the second last sitting day before last summer's recess. Obviously, the Prime Minister wanted to place that bill on the record in case he decided to call a fall election. However, things then started to happen. We had a Gallup poll, we had a Goldfarb poll, we had the North Pole, the South Pole and the "roly-pol". All these polls seemed to frighten the Prime Minister out of his wits, and when he could not find the courage to call an election, what did he do? Did his government introduce his bill at the first opportunity? It did not. It delayed action for another five months.
In fact, further delays could result from the government's seeing fit to introduce an omnibus bill dealing not only with the re-establishment of a separate department of fisheries, but also with the employees of Canada Patents and Development Limited, the representation commissioner, the Medical Research Council, the National Research Council, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, parliamentary secretaries and the Department of the Environment. I submit that these measures could well have been dealt with in a separate bill.
It should also be recognized that the establishment of the new department will not in itself be a cure-all for all the problems which presently plague Canada's fishing industry. The proposal by our lead speaker that this bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry is one that I endorse. I think various proposals in the bill would be more acceptable if the debate were carried out in that particular committee, since those members of the Commons who have expertise in fisheries and the environment generally are present at the meetings of that committee. So I think it would help bring forth a better bill. This is a proposal I endorse and throw out for consideration by the government.
Government Organization
The measure of success of any government policy cannot be based upon the government's view of things, but rather upon the view of others, especially those directly involved in the industry. This leads us to ask how the government's fisheries policy is faring. In the letter to the Prime Minister of September 22, 1978, the Fisheries Council of Canada stated:
We are deeply concerned that the potential of our industry will not be realized because your approach to the country's economic problems is not being followed in respect to fisheries. In fact in fisheries the government's approach is one of increasing intervention and opposition to the private sector.
To realize the opportunities, it is necessary to establish a continuity of investment. As Mr. Chretien has put it, encourage risk taking and willingness to spend in the private sector that is essential to get the economy growing faster.
But the council points out that this depends in turn to a large extent on the creation and maintenance by government of a favourable climate for future investment.
The letter goes on to say that the council regrets the government's approach to fisheries is not creating a favourable climate for long-term investment, and they itemize some of the main problems as follows. First is the refusal of the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) to issue to Canadians licences for freezer factory vessels. This is particularly difficult to understand when such Canadian vessels would replace only foreign effort and would not reduce by a single pound the existing catch of any Canadian fisherman. Second are the unclear and unwise policies in such areas as ownership of vessels; and third, the ad hoc manipulation of the fisheries resource instead of forward planning for development.
It is my understanding that this letter was almost completely ignored by our Prime Minister. He sent only a pro forma reply thanking the fisheries council for its views. I submit that the time is long past for nice words of gratitude. I submit that what is needed now is action, or otherwise the Canadian fishing industry will lose the optimum benefits of the 200-mile limit which we on this side have originally proposed.
The fisheries council points out that the federal government has the complete responsibility for the management of the fisheries resource and that lack of jurisdiction over the stocks in the past has handicapped the ability of Canadian scientists and resource managers to carry out their mandate. However, the council makes the point that the scientists are now in a position to manage properly, but they have much to do in gathering knowledge of stock size and population dynamics. This is the area where the federal government has the responsibility and the expertise, and it is here that it should be directing its efforts rather than in commercial activities which must be the responsibility of the private sector.
I endorse those views of the council on behalf of the fishermen. What was the government's response to this important recommendation? Almost at the same time that it was being made, the government announced its decision to close down the Halifax fisheries laboratory, effective April 1, 1979, and its plan to discontinue all programs involved in research oriented toward the secondary fishing sector; that is, fish processing. The stupidity of this move became evident finally

January 23, 1979
Government Organization
even to this government, and on December 21, 1978, the minister, in a press release containing the kind of double talk to which we have become accustomed from this government, stated that he had completed his review of cutbacks in fisheries technological development programs and said he had no intention of reducing essential fisheries research. I ask the minister, when he replies in this debate, as I am sure he will, to define to the fishermen of Canada and to the people of Canada his interpretation of the meaning of the word "essential".
He has stated that the fisheries technological laboratories at Halifax and Vancouver would not be closed down, which I submit is comparable to telling the crew of a ship: "Have no fear, your ship will sail, the only difference being that there will be a few changes; there will be no captain, mate, cook, bosun or engineer." At Halifax, where there was a total staff of only 79, some 23 scientists will be laid off. On the west coast, where there is a staff of only 31, some 11 scientists will be dismissed. The only place where no changes are contemplated is in Newfoundland where, as I understand it, only seven scientists are employed.
At the Halifax laboratory, for example, there are at least four divisions. In the resource utilization division, 11 scientists, including the division chief, will be dismissed. This minister and this government have destroyed the division, which leaves us to ask: Just what were these scientists doing? They were studying and developing processes for utilizing fish for human consumption which would otherwise be turned into fishmeal or thrown overboard, completely discarded. They were developing new processes for mincing and flossing saltfish, new storage techniques, such as hypobarric or reduced pressure storage so that fish could be stored for longer periods. All of this important work now goes by the board.
In the chemistry division where studies were carried out on the nutritional value of fish, among other things, ten scientists will be displaced. Perhaps their most important work was on the value of marine oils to mankind. But this work is considered unimportant by this government and by the minister so three research scientists, three chemists, a biologist and three technicians will be dismissed.
The industrial development division remains untouched, but in program management two out of four of the key men presently employed will be laid off. So much for the minister's announcement.
The minister in his statement of December 21, 1978, said:
With the resurgence of the fishing industry in the past year or so, companies should now be in a position to meet these development costs themselves.
The minister seems to forget, for example, that lobster fishermen are individuals, that they generally do not own large companies and they are therefore not in a position to continue the studies of the fisheries laboratory on wet storage for lobsters, or the studies on the relationship of offshore and inshore lobster stocks, or the studies on an acceptable substitute for artificial baits for lobsters so that valuable mackerel and herring presently used for lobster bait could be sold for human consumption, thereby increasing the fishermen's income.

The actions taken by this government will seriously affect our fishermen and our secondary industry. They are in direct contradiction to the advice given to the government by the industry. I submit that this policy, which the minister stands by so firmly, should be changed. In fact, when making these changes in our scientific staff, no mechanism whatsoever has been established for the transferral of the 54 years of basic research expertise either to the provincial governments or to private industry. Some of these scientists have ten to 15 years or more of experience, and this type of know-how once lost cannot easily be regained. Some of these scientists already are planning to go to the United States out of necessity and the need to obtain employment. Their knowledge will soon be aiding our competition. These scientists were showing our individual fishermen and our secondary industry how to upgrade their product.
Therefore, we view this section of the minister's fisheries policy as a retrograde step which should be reconsidered. Following the next election, when we on this side form the federal government-


Roméo LeBlanc: God help us.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The minister did not finish his statement.


Roméo LeBlanc: God help the fishermen.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: What he meant was: God help him and hon. members opposite. Because after the next election they will be sitting on this side of the House. When we form the next government-and believe me, we will do that-


Jeanne Sauvé: When will that be?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The hon. minister will be able to grunt and groan when she is on this side of the House after the next election.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest the hon. member should talk about Bill C-35, not the next election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: When we form the next government, we intend to place not less but greater emphasis on fisheries research. We believe the people on the east and west coasts, as well as the industry, deserve this type of consideration since capital expended in this manner is a form of pump priming which generates industrial expansion.
The provincial governments also have been critical of the present government's fishing policies. They have called for action as well. In November, 1977, the Atlantic premiers prepared a policy paper urging the federal government to implement a fishing vessel replacement and upgrading program in concert with the provincial governments. At that time they said the following:
January 23, 1979

Unless our fishing industry is rapidly developed, a large part of the potential economic benefits from our 200-mile zone will be unnecessarily deferred and possibly lost to Canada and foreign nations will continue to reap significantly benefits from our fisheries resources.
Only inaction was forthcoming from the federal government regarding this provincial initiative. Consequently the provinces have been forced to do it alone. This is apparent from the Newfoundland government announcement in November, 1978 that it would implement a $500 million fisheries development program providing 4,500 new jobs.
Mir. LeBlanc (Westmorland-Rent): Who pays for it?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I ask the minister, who is paying for Mirabel which is going in the hole in the amount of $1 million a week?


Roméo LeBlanc: Stick to the issue.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The issue is the reallocation of federal tax funds in order to generate the expansion of industry in areas where expansion is required. Now the federal government faces the prospect of possible conflicting provincial fishery programs because it has refused to take positive action in fishery development.
In the spring of 1978 issue of "Canadian Public Policy", C. L. Mitchell of the economic analysis division of the Department of Fisheries and the Environment stated the following:
There is still no clearcut management strategy for the 200-mile economic zone by Canada.
Government policies have been formulated in a piecemeal fashion without any concept of an over-all management strategy. He added that the economic difficulties now facing the coast fishing industry indicate that it is not a leading sector but a lagging one, one requiring massive inputs of federal financial assistance to survive. However, the magnitude of this assistance can be justified on the premise that although the industry has its problems, it has the potential to become a leading sector. It is essential for this potential to be realized since the Canadian economy is experiencing severe economic difficulties due to inflationary pressures, high wage rates and balance of payments problems.
There are numerous policy issues which the government has to face. Groundfish stocks are increasing so that it is now becoming possible to consider more efforts by both inshore and offshore fishermen. The year 1979 will mark the third year since the declaration of our 200-mile limit. Consequently, the industry believes that a policy should be established now for controlled expansion of inshore and offshore fleets, and providing for the selection of licences to be unfrozen in a fair, equitable and orderly manner. By establishing such a policy now, some unnecessary uncertainty would be removed as vessel licence owners would know the order in which licences would be unfrozen, and along with shipyard operators they could plan for the sizeable investments which will be required.
Instead of following this course, on December 4, 1978, the minister announced a six-month freeze on new entries to the inshore fishery in most Atlantic coast areas. Canada cannot reap the potential benefits of the 200-mile limit if its fleet does
Government Organization
not have the capacity to harvest the fish stocks available during the next decade. Many of the vessels in the present fleet are technologically obsolete.
Much of the fish allocated by Canada to foreign countries is of non-traditional species, such as squid and silver hake. These species cannot be landed in good market condition by present Canadian trawlers. Rather, they are caught by foreign freezer trawlers. Using our own or leased freezer trawlers, these fish, plus other more traditional species in distant waters, could be caught by Canadians. Additional work would be provided for Canadian fishermen and plant workers. New products would be available for sale in overseas markets. Therefore, until Canada is prepared to license Canadian-owned freezer trawlers fishing for both traditional and non-traditional species, many of the benefits of the 200-mile limit will be missed by Canadian fishermen.
In response to this problem, when my party is elected to power we would implement a licensing policy which would permit Canadian-owned freezer trawlers to catch some of the large quantities of fish the present government is now giving away to foreign countries. The minister claimed that freezer trawlers are not economically sound. This is not a decision which must be made by the minister, unless we are to go from a private enterprise system to a totally socialistic system. The opportunity should be provided by the minister and his government. Then he should let the individual fishermen and the companies with whom they are involved make the decision as to whether it is economically sound.
As well, we would set up a fisheries development fund from which grants and loans would be made available for ship refits and new ship construction. On shore this fund could provide assistance for the construction of freezers or holding depots for fish. By being able to freeze more fish, processing plants would operate year-round, thereby providing needed employment in the maritime regions.
If we do not move quickly to catch Canadian surpluses of existing quotas, probably we will be pressured under the terms of the bilateral fishing agreements with the international community to give up our right to catch these resources. This is a genuine threat. In this field the minister adopted a go-slow approach. Sometimes I think he has gone in reverse. It is amazing. So far the minister has not developed a long-term plan to Canadianize the offshore fishery. There has been no apparent recognition of the long lead times required to accomplish this end. In addition, to date bilateral discussions with foreign countries related to these surplus quotas have been conducted with insufficient input from or consultation with the industry.
Marketing uncertainty has been caused by the government's closed-mouth approach to tariff negotiations. Since 1974 the industry has submitted three briefs to the Canadian Trade and Tariffs Committee. However, little feedback has been forthcoming about the progress of negotiations. Prior to Britain joining the common market, Canada had free entry of canned salmon, shrimp and lobster into the British market. Now the tariffs on these products range from 17 per cent to 18 per cent,

January 23, 1979
Canada Shipping Act
despite the fact that these tariffs are not protecting a domestic European product.
Also Canadian industry faces unfair discrimination in some instances. For example, in groundfish exports the Canadian industry faces tariffs from 15 per cent to 18 per cent into the Common Market, whereas the Common Market tariff against Norwegian groundfish exports is 3 per cent and against Icelandic exports it is duty free. Canadian industry only wants equal treatment with these two major competitors.
There are other trade concerns.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Raines)-Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Salary paid to newsreader Knowl-ton Nash; the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Hare)- Social Insurance-Use of SIN; the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher)-External Affairs-Francophone summit meeting-Discussions with France.
It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills and notices of motions.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that we proceed with Bill C-218, and that other private members' bills be allowed to stand and retain their precedence with the unanimous consent of the house.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Agreed and so ordered.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria) moved: that Bill C-218, to amend the Canada Shipping Act (pollution), be read the

second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to ask this House to pass Bill C-218, to amend the Canada Shipping Act. Perhaps the easiest way to explain this measure would be to read from the explanatory notes in the Bill itself:
This bill recognizes that modern bulk carriers can carry millions of dollars worth of oil or other potential pollutants and that the damage from a massive oil spill can run into the tens of millions of dollars. Its purpose is to make the penalties for operating a vessel in such a way that it poses a threat to the environment commensurate with the damage such action can cause. It is hoped that the significant deterrent provided in this bill will more fully ensure that Canadian regulations designed to prevent pollution are obeyed completely.
All too often Canada has neglected her maritime heritage and minimized the importance of the seas to the nation. "From sea unto sea" is not motto which restricts us; the seas do not hedge us in; rather they are our highways to the world. While we can all mouth such bold phrases as "the world's longest coastline", "coasts on three oceans", these have been homilies often repeated but seldom acted upon.
Perhaps we need to look at these situations in new ways if we are to realize again the importance of our maritime commerce. Consider the fact that eight of the provinces have ports which handle international cargo. Moreover, and somewhat paradoxically, the two land-locked provinces, Saskatchewan and Alberta, are heavily dependent upon ocean transport for shipping grain, one of Canada's most important exports.
Just as too many of us have failed to realize the vital importance to Canada of maritime commerce and of our ocean resources, this government has allowed the Canada Shipping Act to become outdated. It is, sadly, an act which was written for earlier times. It is an act which needs to be amended so that its provisions will be relevant to today's shipping. It is for this reason that I propose these amendments to the Canada Shipping Act.
I should make it clear at once that I do not expect that the specific element of this bill-an increase in the fines which can be assessed under the act-will solve the problems created by this government's lack of concern with maritime affairs. Similarly, I am familiar enough with the ways of this house to know that extensive modifications of an act as complex as the Canada Shipping Act cannot be expected to be realized through the mechanism of the private member's bill. Rather, I have introduced this bill to point out one of the particularly simple ways in which the government has allowed the act to become outdated. It is my hope that this will prompt the government to amend the act to bring it into reasonable accord with today's situation in shipping.
Of particular concern to the residents of coastal communities is the potential for disastrous pollution posed by today's supertankers. Twenty years ago, when tankers of 40,000 tons were the largest to be seen and oil was cheap, fines of $100,000 may well have seemed Draconian; now with tankers of 400,000 tons and cargoes of oil worth tens of millions of dollars, those fines pale into insignificance. Supertankers have indeed forced a complete rethinking and re-evaluation of the seas and shipping and the relation that these bear to society as
January 23, 1979

a whole. Ships which may take half an hour and four miles to stop, which have a turning radius measured in miles, and which have the colossal momentum required to do significant damage while barely moving, are not the ships which the shipping act was designed to cover.
What we must admit is that these ships force us to re-think the nature of freedom of the seas: that is, the relation between littoral states themselves. These changes have been made necessary by the changed nature of the ships; they have been made urgent by the scale of damage which a mishap can now cause. The changes being wrought in these areas fall into two major categories: changes to ships, the way they are built, maintained and manned; and, secondly, changes to the ways in which ships may be operated.
Let us begin with the first category. In some ways this is the easier group to deal with as the problems are largely technical-matters of design and reporting procedures. Even these changes are not straightforward, however.
The 1973 conventions of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization, known as IMCO, were not ratified largely because of difficulties with the drafting of the technical articles. Now that the errors of the 1973 conventions have largely been rectified by the 1978 conventions, it is time for the Canadian government to ratify these protocols. That these protocols require amendments to the Canada Shipping Act is all the more reason for the government to sign the protocols, as they could use the opportunity to bring about other improvements to the act.
In looking over these protocols it is apparent that much of the concern of the convention has been with the pollution caused by current habits of dumping the oily residue left after flushing tanks which have been unloaded. While such pollution is certainly not as spectacular as that created by tanker founderings, the cumulative effects of such minor incidents are far more severe, and it is with the consequences that we must be concerned. If stopping two hundred gallon spills or one hundred flushes lack the high profile politically of swinging into action after a disaster, that is too bad. We must concentrate on what does the most good, no matter how mundane the continual inspection of radar, steering systems and clear segregated ballast may seem to be.
The tendency of this government to go in for big, splashy programs, often at the expense of effectiveness, is of particular concern to me. I should like to relate to the House a particularly frustrating example, one which was the result of oil leakage or tank flushing, the major source of oil pollution.
Some five years ago the municipality of Oak Bay, which is in my constituency, suffered a small oil spill offshore. The municipality was made aware of this before the oil came to shore and they set about with an emergency crew to mop up the damage before it became worse by drifting on to the sand and rocks of the foreshore. They were able to complete the work within hours at a cost of S430.
They started very quickly trying to recover this money from the government, which has assumed the responsibility of
Canada Shipping Act
paying the claims of people who are not covered or not able to claim against the ships involved. This is accomplished by application to an unusual little organization which looks after the maritime pollution disaster fund. This may have started off being a small organization, but with claims of 15 cents per ton for every ton of oil that is shipped into Canada, or from one point in Canada to another, over several years this has amounted to some $48 million or $49 million.
From time to time I have put questions on the order paper concerning this maritime pollution disaster fund. The last question was answered on December 15 just over a month ago. At page 2178 of Hansard for that date we find the following question:
What is the total amount accumulated in the maritime pollution claims fund?
The answer was $48,997,810.93. The second part of the question, which might be even more interesting, was:
How many payments have been made from the fund in each case (a) in what amount (b) to whom (c) on what date?
The answer to the question what had been paid out of this $48 million was that there had been two claims, one for $345.90 to a Mr. William Guimond, a fisherman at Pointe au Pere, Quebec, on October 23, 1975; and a second payment of $300 to a Mr. Eudore Boudreau, fisherman, Carleton, Quebec, on January 5, 1977. So we have managed to pay out $645.90 of that $48,997,810.93 in the fund. I would also point out that they quit contributing to that fund according to last year's report of this organization. The report reads:
The payment into the fund of 15 cents in respect of each ton of oil-was cancelled as of September 1, 1976-
I suppose it is of interest only to people in this House that there seems to be a slight difference in the balance of the fund at the present time. The current report which was tabled today shows a balance of $46,936,174, whereas according to the order paper answer which I received in December it was $48,997,000, an extra $2 million which must have come from somewhere. It may be interest accrued on the $46 million which they had last spring.
I took the occasion to get in touch with these people regarding the Oak Bay problem. I eventually found that the government has a set of reasons as to why one cannot qualify for these funds. One qualification which Oak Bay did not meet was that they did not have previous Privy Council approval for cleaning up the oil spill. How ridiculous can an act get, when it expects a municipality with a three-hour time difference and faced with an incoming small oil spill at midnight to wake up the Privy Council?
We cannot wake them up during question period, so how on earth is Oak Bay going to wake them up at three o'clock in the morning to get approval to clean up the oil spill before it drifts ashore? I would hope that some minister of transport some day will be able to find out just what the reasons are as to why no money ever comes out of the maritime pollution disaster fund and why the fund does not satisfy the ordinary means of the
2480

January 23, 1979
Canada Shipping Act
small communities which run the most danger from such disasters.
I think that this example demonstrates, Mr. Speaker, that legislation in this area must be flexible, but, above all, responsive to the immediate problems, not just the spectacular problems. Similarly, the technical changes which need to be made to Canadian shipping regulations-such as back-up radar, twin screws, segregated ballast, properly trained crew and careful inspection-are vital, though perhaps not overwhelmingly exciting. We must ensure that in these areas the appropriate authority, in most cases the coastguard, has the resources required to do a thorough job as well as sufficient authority to ensure full compliance with the regulations and sanctions such as those proposed here.
Earlier I referred to another type of change which will have to be made if maritime shipping is to be made safer-changes to the human side and the way the ships are operated. I realize that these questions are often harder to deal with than the seeming complexity of technical changes, and I certainly approach this end of the problem with some reticence. The fact remains, however, that the best designed ships will not of themselves prevent accidents; much also depends upon the maintenance of the ship and the diligence and training of the crew. Unfortunately, time after time when spills are investigated it is found that the crews were overworked, undertrained, and that basic equipment was not up to par. In this regard I would like to refer to the findings of Dr. McTaggart-Cowan's inquiry into the Arrow disaster. He found that the radar had ceased to function an hour before the ship struck, the echo sounder had not been in working condition for two months, and the gyrocompass had a permanent error of three degrees. I read now from the conclusions of that committee of enquiry:
We are well aware of the fact that no form of transportation can be 100 per cent safe but from the record available to us, the standard of operation of the world's tanker fleets, particularly those under flags of convenience is so appalling and so far from the kind of safety which science, engineering and technology can bring to those who care, that the people of the world should demand immediate action.
As Dr. McTaggart-Cowan points out, one of the primary obstacles to realizing significant change is the refuge offered by flags of convenience. It is impossible to believe that Liberia makes even the most perfunctory effort to ensure that ships registered there are competently manned or in proper running order. In this regard I would like to quote from a report tabled today by the administrator of the maritime pollution claims fund where he speaks of an incident when the Island Spruce broke adrift from her tow, resulting in a suit to recover the cost of an action to prevent oil pollution:
The ship-owner, the Cayman Islands corporation, does not appear to have been insured, nor, at the moment, to have any apparent assets upon which to realize.
Of course not, it is a one ship company. The world is plagued with these one ship companies which have as their sole asset one single ship, and if it runs aground they simply abandon it. This effectively shields the actual owners from any responsibility. While the Canadian authorities have had to try to deal with this problem by inspections after the ships have

docked, this is clearly an after-the-fact approach, as the ships have already made their oil-laden journey. What seems to me to be needed is tighter international licensing regulations of both men and machines, as well as more uniform international inspection. This may seem impractical for some. However, I am drawn to compare the situation in international maritime trade with that of international civil aviation. In that field, the International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO, has been highly successful in imposing technical and personal standards and in facilitating the adoption of uniform standards in guidance systems.
Let us consider ICAO's success to see whether we can learn from it any lessons which could be used to strengthen bodies like the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization, IMCO. The universality of ICAO regulations seems to stem in part from the fact that countries use them as basic regulations for all planes landing there. The locus of enforcement or initiative is shifted to the nation of registration. As well, many countries, particularly among the advanced industrial states, have registered supplemental accord raising their standards above the basic ICAO levels.
The conclusion should be clear, that even in the absence of sufficiently stringent IMCO regulations, the oil consuming nations could band together to enact stricter rules for ships using their ports. As these ports represent an overwhelming percentage of the trade for oil tankers, market forces would soon make these the effective minimum standards. By enacting such standards jointly, Canada, Japan, the United States, the EEC and Scandinavia could effectively set the standards for world oil shipping.
There is another aspect of this subject, Mr. Speaker; I would like to compare our approach to shipping with that of aviation. This facet of the question concerns the control of ship movements and knowledge of those movements. While in aviation there is a ground control which knows of the movements of all commercial aircraft in its area, no such mechanism exists in even heavily-used, major waterways such as the English Channel. Similarly, while an airplane pilot must keep ground control closely informed of any problem, no such imperative exists for ocean commerce.
One of the particularly upsetting features of the Amoco Cadiz foundering was that the French coastguard was not informed until after several hours of negotiation and then an attempted rescue by a German tug. This neglect of the public interest, despite the fact that the damage to the shipping cargo may be dwarfed by the damage to the coastline, is a relic of older times and must be changed.
I see that my time has just about expired. I would simply say that we must open up the shipping act one way or another. I am not foolish enough to be optimistic about the passage of this bill, Mr. Speaker. I have proposed these amendments to the Canada Shipping Act because I fear that the act has failed to keep pace with the rapid changes in world shipping, particularly with respect to the transportation of oil and products such as liquid natural gas. Canada should be pressing strongly
January 23, 1979

for better ships to transport these commodities, and for tighter controls over the manning of these vessels.
To these ends we should ratify the IMCO accords of 1973 and 1978 and continue to press for tighter regulation of crew training. Unilaterally, Canada should continue to inspect ships closely and demand high standards of ships using Canadian waters. We must make sure that the coastguard has sufficient resources to do this as well as perform the increased duties brought on by the 200-mile limit. In addition, there must be sanctions sufficient to deter those who would ignore Canada's attempts to protect her maritime environment.


Hugh Alan Anderson: Mr. Speaker, apparently the intention of Bill C-218 is to set the maximum fine for certain offences under the Canada Shipping Act at three times the combined value of the ship and its cargo, thus acting as a much greater deterrent in case of massive oil and other pollution spills. The present maximum fine is $100,000.
As a member of parliament from British Columbia representing a constituency on Vancouver Island, I must say there is a great deal of basic sympathy for the remarks made by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon). I think many of his statements are fitting and correct, but regarding the proposed provisions for three times the combined value of the ship and its cargo, while I think the basic idea is both commendable and interesting, upon closer scrutiny the proposal begins to show some serious weaknesses, not the least of which is a scatter-gun philosophy which fails to take into consideration other forms of penalties. The end result could be harshly punitive and far out of proportion to the offence committed. What the proposed bill does not do, Mr. Speaker, is take into account the differing nature of offences specified in the Canada Shipping Act and its regulations.
The bill would, in effect, result in a maximum fine of three times the combined value of the ship and its cargo applicable to: failure to comply with a pollution prevention officer's orders or directions; sections dealing with evidence of financial responsibility by the owner of the ship or its cargo for civil liability purposes; regulations dealing with fitting, maintenance, testing and use of electronic and other navigational equipment; infractions and maximum quantities of pollutants; loading procedures; navigation practices; records to be kept on ships and certificates showing compliance with the act and regulations, and on and on. The proposed bill, containing one single nucleus of a deterrent, would presumably hope to cover this wide variety of possible offences. It would encompass everything.
There have been a number of major pollution incidents over the past decade which have focused international attention on marine spills, such as the one involving the Arrow, the Argo Merchant, and in 1978, the incident where the Amoco Cadiz oil spill drenched the holiday coastal areas of France. These
Canada Shipping Act
events were accidental in nature and mainly the result of human error or abnormal or unusual conditions.
Unless evidence is produced showing that these types of disasters were due to criminal negligence or acts on the part of the master of the ship or other persons, action to obtain compensation for pollution damage must be taken through procedures other than the act, or other regulations and provisions, since the latter exclude accidental spills due to stranding, collision and foundering, or discharges to save lives or the ship itself.
When one considers the scope and nature of the Canada Shipping Act and the regulatory provisions which relate to oil pollution or other types of spillage, plus the types and variety of vessels subject to these provisions, it becomes quite obvious that a maximum penalty of three times the value of the ship and its cargo is not only inappropriate but excessive. As an example, this bill could mean that a ship's master who failed to keep proper records on pollutants could forfeit a $1 million cargo and a $5 million ship upon conviction for a comparatively minor offence.
The penalty could obviously be disproportionate as well where the master, owner or member of a crew has committed a minor offence, or in instances involving offences by small ships, tugs, fishing boats or pleasure craft.
There is yet another consideration, Mr. Speaker, and that refers to the possible escalation of fines implied in the proposed bill. In 1957, when the first regulations to prevent oil pollution from ships were promulgated, the penalty was a maximum $500 fine or six months' imprisonment, or both. This was raised to $5,000 in 1965 and to the present $100,000 maximum level in 1971. It is interesting to note that over this period the actual fines imposed have risen from a few dollars in 1957 to the average level today of $4,000, with the highest individual fine being $20,000. This bill would alter the current maximum $100,000 fine and introduce new levels of monetary punishment inconsistent with what is generally accepted as an effective deterrent.
With respect to the maximum fine being set as the combined value of the ship and its cargo, it is felt that problems would be encountered by the court and Crown counsel. It would devolve on the Crown to submit evidence of the combined value of the ship and cargo in order that the court know the limit of the fine that could be assessed. While this may not be an onerous process in the case of a minor infraction involving a large ship, it could be so in the case of a major infraction involving a small ship against which the court desires to impose a more severe penalty.
While it cannot be denied that, in the case of massive oil spills, the coastal state affected is not only highly concerned in protecting its resources but will of necessity seek adequate compensation for clean-up costs, nevertheless a reasonable degree of objectivity which takes into account the magnitude and nature of the offence, the circumstances surrounding it and the persons or ships involved, must be maintained.
80047-16 (4

January 23, 1979
Canada Shipping Act
1 believe, Mr. Speaker, that a key point that must be borne in mind is that the penalties to which this bill addresses itself are specifically for cases where deliberate and wilful contravention of regulations and directions of a pollution prevention officer occur. The penalties are not intended to provide any form of compensation against pollution damage to property, resources or costs of clean-up.
Another interesting point, Mr. Speaker, is that part XX of the act provides that the owner of a ship carrying a pollutant in bulk is liable for the costs and expenses of any action authorized by the governor in council to repair or remedy any condition resulting from pollutant discharge by the ship.
Such liability as referred to in this clause is not dependent upon proof of fault or negligence; but no person is liable for costs and expenses where he can establish that the discharge was caused by another person or where the cause was through an act of war, hostilities, or was of an exceptional, inevitable and irresistible character.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, this serves as a reminder that the maritime pollution claims fund, established under provisions of section 737 of the act, operates as an unsatisfied judgment fund, similar to that established in most provinces covering damages incurred as a result of automobile accidents where the driver at fault is not insured.
The proposals in this bill are, in my opinion, too general in nature to cover the national and international requirements for pollution control. If the bill should become law, it would be unfair. The bill as proposed fails to take into consideration the present diversity of legislation which has so far demonstrated its effectiveness in Canada as a deterrent. While I said I have a general sympathy for the direction in which the hon. member is going, the proposals contained in the bill are neither practical nor desirable amendments to the Canada Shipping Act at this time.
In British Columbia there is a great concern about oil spillage on the Pacific coast. One issue which has united most members from the province of British Columbia in this House is the opposition to the creation of an oil port at Kitimat. I think it is fair to say that the people of British Columbia do not want to be involved in the possibility of an oil spill in the transshipment of American or other foreign oil that would be transshipped through Kitimat to the northern tier states. This government has taken the position that it opposes the development of Kitimat on that basis.
It is interesting to note that a consortium of companies has apparently started a further drive to have Kitimat opened as an ocean-going port for transshipment of Indonesian, perhaps Arab and certainly Alaskan oil. I also understand the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) has supported the policy of the development of Kitimat as a port of transshipment of oil. He has stated he is in favour of this proposal and that if the Conservative party is elected as the government in the next election, it will proceed with this port.

I raise this because the hon. member for Victoria, for the very best of reasons, is concerned about oil spillage, while another member of the same party would support the transshipment of oil, realizing the dangers of a spill in that area.
It is all very well to talk about changing legislation and increasing fines. However, I hope the hon. member for Victoria will agree that in this situation the way to solve the problem of pollution, especially on the west coast of British Columbia, is not to increase the fines, but to not allow the port of Kitimat to go into operation in any sense, regardless of who supports it in the United States.
The reason Kitimat is being proposed at this time is the fact that by going from Alaska to Kitimat you go from an American port to a foreign port. The shipper therefore is not bound under the Jones act to use American carriers. By going from Alaska to Kitimat he can, as the hon. member mentioned, use flags of convenience. For that reason alone I have great fear about Kitimat being opened as an oil port, as well as the dangers because of the topography, because the entrance is too narrow for huge oil tankers.
Increasing fines is not the answer for the port of Kitimat. Members on all sides of this House should state that we will not develop Kitimat for the use of the United States which would have all of the benefits but none of the ecological or environmental problems. I hope the hon. member will agree that the solution to problems such as Kitimat is not increasing the fines for oil spills but by not allowing it to happen in the first place, and ensuring that the United States and the consortium interested in developing Kitimat are clearly told that members on all sides of this House will not tolerate development of the port of Kitimat.
[Translation\


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) for his proposal to increase fines in the case of water pollution caused by oil spills, and since I am aware of the love of the hon. member for his region and the natural beauty of Vancouver Island, I understand that he must be very concerned about the possibility of pollution.
At the present time, section 752 of the Canada Shipping Act provides a maximum fine of $100,000 for any person or any ship discharging a pollutant in contravention of any regulation made pursuant to section 728. The suggestion of the hon. member to set the amount of the fine so as not to exceed three times the combined value of the ship and its cargo is certainly interesting, but its application could present many problems, and I shall try to explain some of the difficulties that could result from such an amendment.
The present legislation aims at producing a deterrent effect in the cases of massive discharge of oil or other pollutants. Such cases result in extremely high cleaning costs as well as possible and often major damage to the maritime environment and the coastal regions. In this regard, I would refer to the
January 23, 1979

accident of the Amoco Cadiz on the coast of Britanny which discharged 200,000 metric tons of oil which then spread over more than 100 kilometres along the Britanny coast. As everyone will recall, this catastrophe not only destroyed marine life forms, but also chased away summer vacationers. This is one of the many such cases which greatly concern us, and such an accident could well occur along the Canadian coastline despite the action that has already been taken.
Maritime pollution is therefore a major problem and a risk that we must recognize. In this regard, these amendments would extend the penalties not only to the sections of the legislation which provide for the interdiction and control of oil spills, to the directives given to pollution prevention officers, to the proof of financial responsibility that ship owners must provide, but also to the violations of the regulations provided under the sections of part XX of the act, which concern such things as the good condition, the maintenance and the use of electronic navigation equipment, the maximum quantity of pollutants which can be shipped and the means and facilities provided for storage.
Those regulations apply also to the supplies and equipment the vessels should have for the treatment of pollutants, the storage of oil residues, to the supply, keeping and use of maps and nautical publications, to the number and qualifications of officers and crew members, to navigation practices and procedure, to the records, the process for loading and unloading the pollutants and the possession of certificates required by the law and related regulations.
I wish to say that if we apply more severe sanctions for contravening the provisions of the law and related regulations we would not take into account the different nature of offences described in this legislation. In most cases of oil spills, be it the Amoco Cadiz I mentioned earlier or the Arrow or the Argo Merchant which have been the most important oil spills in recent years, those are accidental disasters resulting most of the time from human error or abnormal or unusual conditions. Unless we have proof that such disasters are due to criminal negligence or imputable to the captain of the ship or other people, to claim a compensation we must follow procedures other than that of the law or the regulations mentioned earlier. In fact, those provisions exclude accidental spills due to leakage, collision and so on.
Compensation for damages caused by oil spills is provided by the legislation through provisions other than those I mentioned earlier. Section 734 holds responsible the owners of a polluter vessel and they have to pay all cleaning costs and expenses as established by the governor in council and the losses or damages incurred by the Crown or other individuals. In no case must there be proof of human error or negligence to establish the responsibility of the owner of a ship or cargo.
Canada Shipping Act
In addition to the preceding considerations, the Maritime Pollution Claims Fund, established under section 737 of the act, provides for unsatisfactory findings. This fund can be drawn upon where shipowner claims for cleaning expenditures and other pollution damages are not fully satisfactory.
In this connection, I followed with great interest the remarks by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) concerning the fund's inefficiency-or operating difficulties. I also regret that Oak Bay could not get the $300 or $400 compensation due because of regulations that are somewhat too stringent in my view, or too narrowly interpreted.
I am certain the comments made by hon. member and the bringing of this matter to the attention of the House can bring improvements and those charged with the administration of the fund will have a more open mind and somewhat less literal in their interpretation of the regulations.
As stated by my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Anderson), the act and the regulations apply to a wide variety of ships, either supertankers, tankers, bulk carriers, dry good carriers, general cargo or bulk carriers, containerships, passenger ships and what not, private yachts, tugs and other small boats registered either in Canada or abroad. It might then make for heavy administration if the penalties were extended to all such classes of ships that do not always fall into the same category, as supertankers or tankers.
When the type and variety of ships subject to the act and regulations are considered, and also the nature and scope of the regulations section, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that a fine three times the value of the ship and its cargo are considered highly excessive in a number of cases by many people in the maritime field.
Although it cannot be denied that in the case of major oil spills, the province affected is deeply concerned for the protection of its resources and claims adequate compensation for cleaning costs, a reasonable degree of objectivity that takes into account the nature and the extent of the fault as well as the related circumstances and the persons involved must nevertheless be maintained.
When minor offences are committed by small vessels, or by the captain or the crew, in such a case, Mr. Speaker, the fine would definitely be out of proportion. Although the ruling concerning the amount of the Fine ultimately remains the responsibility of the court, a higher maximum penalty could indeed result in raising the fines now imposed.
I think that my colleague from Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) also raised that point when he said that in 1957, when the first regulations for the prevention of sea pollution were established, the maximum penalty then was $500 or six months in jail or both. And yet at that time the maximum fines imposed by the court ranged from a few dollars up to about half of the maximum amount. In 1965 the maximum penalty was raised

January 23, 1979
Canada Shipping Act
to $5,000 and fines up to this maximum were imposed until 1971. During this period, the average fine was approximately $1,000. Since 1971, with the enforcement of Part XX of the act, while the maximum fine is now $100,000, the biggest fine that was imposed was only $20,000 and the average has been only $4,000.
The number of investigations and the number of court actions finalized each year have not increased. While the ideal situation would be of course a total lack of violation of the law, it can be considered, Mr. Speaker, that the present level of fines is a major dissuasive factor. However, Canadian courts clearly have wide latitude to impose higher fines, should the need arise, since they use only one quarter of the maximum available.
As regards the proposal to establish a fine representing three times the value of the ship and its cargo, one must consider the problems that the court and the Crown would be facing in any action. According to the size of the ship as well as to the type and nature of its cargo, the Crown has to prove the combined value so that the court can know the limit of the fine to be imposed. If such a calculation can be approximate, it is nonetheless a complex process, particularly where the cargo is composed of different commodities.
Although the investigation should not be too costly in the case of minor offences involving large ships, it could however be expensive where smaller ships are involved in major offences for which the court could wish to impose a higher fine. Furthermore, in the case of actions against people, some of them having possibly no relation with the accused ship, as in the case of longshoremen for example, the proposed penalty seems altogether disproportionate.
According to the considerations mentioned earlier, it does not seem that the proposal in Bill C-218 is at the present time a desirable amendment to the Canada Shipping Act.
Again, the bill would increase the limit of the fines, which is presently $100,000, applicable for failure to comply with the act and its regulations in all areas. What does it mean exactly? It means for example that if there is discharge of one or several pollutants such as specified in the regulations, except for two which are authorized under part XX of the Canada Shipping Act, in all waters covered by the said part and regulations, that penalty could also apply to any person falling under the provisions who fails to give some evidence of financial responsibility such as insurance, salvage bond or any other kind of evidence of financial responsibility which satisfies the Minister of Transport, in the case of civil liability resulting from oil spills. In case of failure to comply with any reasonable requirement of a pollution prevention officer or to provide some information concerning the condition of the ship, its machinery and equipment, the nature, quantity and location of its cargo; as well as failure for a ship that is within waters

described in part XX of the legislation to comply with any order or instruction of a pollution prevention officer about its route, the manner it should proceed to anchor and moor, if the pollution prevention officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the ship fails to comply with any regulation or that such an order is warranted to avoid pollutant spills.
Penalties are also levied in case of failure of a ship to comply with any order or instruction of a pollution prevention officer to report its position.
Mr. Speaker, in addition the higher penalties would apply for failure to comply with the regulations established under section 730(l)(c) to (l)(o) of the legislation and then it would become a little more difficult to levy such penalties respecting the fitting, maintenance, testing and use of electronic and other navigational gear.
Penalties could also be levied under section 730 for other classes of ships and the maximum quantity of pollutants that may be carried aboard such ships whether as cargo or otherwise, as well as the method of stowage of the cargo or fuel in such holds and tanks; respecting the supplies and equipment and the fitting and installations required for the handling of pollutants and dealing with any discharge thereof; respecting the method of retention of oily and other wastes by ships carrying pollutants; respecting regulations applicable to the maintenance and use of appropriate charts, tide tables and other nautical publications; respecting the number and qualifications of navigation and engine room personnel, including pilots and lookouts required to be on duty aboard; respecting procedures to be followed when pollutants are loaded or unloaded from a ship; respecting procedures and practices to be followed by persons on board ships in order to ensure safe navigation; for the supplies and equipment to be maintained by the operators of loading and unloading facilities for ships for use in the event of any discharge of a pollutant; and finally for records to be kept on board of any activities which result in or may result in the discharge of a pollutant as well as for the persons by whom such records shall be kept.
There are still other cases, Mr. Speaker, such as the prevention of the pollution of the air by ships, the establishment of compulsory traffic routes and of other shipping traffic controls considered necessary for safe navigation in waters to which part XX applies, the issue to the owner or master of any ship of a certificate that, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, is proof of the compliance of such ship with the requirements of the act. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, because of all these considerations, as I was saying, I do not think it would be wise at the present time to amend the Canada Shipping Act by passing Bill C-218 proposed by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon).


Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, in 1979, it is an unquestionable fact that pollution of all kinds, be it air, water or even sight pollution, is increasingly worrying the people of all countries and more
January 23, 1979

particularly the people of Canada. Bill C-218, proposed to the House by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) reflects all the concerns expressed by the Canadian public, concerns which the hon. member wishes to still-and I can understand that-by means of his amendment to the Canada Shipping Act.
The hon. member for Victoria should be commended for his initiative although I, like the previous speakers, have some doubts about the possibility of implementing the propositions he made to the House.
Mr. Speaker, water is much too vital an element in the life of a nation to let anybody use and abuse it with impunity and inconsiderately. Water serves not only to generate electricity, which is indispensable for the economic development of our country and creates a great many jobs for our labour force, but it facilitates the transport of goods or makes sailing and canoeing possible; it contains resources which are a source of food and make it possible for thousands of Canadians to earn a living.
When one thinks of the enormous problems the fishing industry has been faced with over the past few years, one can easily appreciate that water pollution resulting from the discharge of oil, gas and other pollutants from ships in our waters is a very important cause of the deterioration of our marine resources.
Mr. Speaker, I can remember at least two instances of the consequences of oil spills by ships in my riding. Naturally, those accidents could perhaps have been avoided; I really do not know. Perhaps, from the technological angle, the ships involved might have been built to ensure more security, but in one case there was an accident: the ship struck a rock and unfortunately spilled gallons of oil which polluted not only the water but the beaches of the Magdalene Islands among others. In 1974 or 1975, there was a case similar to the one mentioned a while ago by the hon. member for Victoria, along Chaleur Bay, in my own parish of Carleton, and over roughly a 30-mile stretch. There was a cleaning operation, but even now traces of residue can still be found of the pollution caused by the Golden Robin. That was the name of the ship involved in the accident.
Since it is almost six o'clock, I should like to make a few remarks on the speech of the sponsor of the bill to the effect that what he is suggesting is intended to remedy the neglect of the present government. Mr. Speaker, to my mind, no federal government has ever done as much as this one to help prevent water pollution. I could name all the bills introduced by the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment: the Clean Air Act which states, the legislation which indicates what to do with wastes spilled in the water. I think one can say there was no negligence. True, one could go to extremes, but in a society where private enterprise is expected to participate to such a great extent, restrictions must not be too numerous. I am surprised that the hon. member for Victoria, whose party supports private enterprise, should come
Government Organization
and suggest such a fine, though I can understand that, in some cases, it might be reasonable where there was gross negligence. But when, by sheer accident, a ship spills oil or other pollutants without any fault on its part, I think it would be imposing a little too much constraint on this ship's owner. If we impose payment of up to three times the value, we will not see many ships navigating in our waters.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen (for the Prime Minister) that Bill C-35, respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned for private members' hour at five o'clock I was debating Bill C-35 which deals primarily with establishing a separate department of fisheries and oceans. I pointed out at that time that there are many grave concerns within the fishing industry at present, and now I suggest that the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) should become acquainted with them.
The Canadian fishing industry can compete in world markets, but I submit it should not be handicapped by unfair competition and by a federal government reluctant to show leadership in attaining fair competition for our fishing industry. An integral part of any successful fisheries policy, I submit, must be consultation. In this matter, the road which the federal government has travelled has been paved with failure.
In 1975, for example, changes were made in the Atlantic lobster industry. Only after the recommendations were drawn up were the fishermen involved and concerned invited to participate; and then they were invited to the Citadel Inn in

January 23, 1979
Government Organization
Halifax for one day and asked to digest some 160 pages of regulations drawn up by the minister and his bureaucrats here in Ottawa. No wonder that the fishermen claimed there has not been a real chance to participate in the decision-making process.
The lobster fishing policy of the present government is frightening-that is the only word I can use. It is frightening to read some of the letters that I receive from my constituents, men who have been fishing since they were 12 years old, and because they decided they could not make a living as lobster fishermen they had to participate in some other form of fishing. The minister and his bureaucrats have stated that the fishermen's lobster fishing licences will not be renewed, that they cannot follow two forms of fishing. The minister is saying in effect that they must starve as lobster fishermen. Let me point out that the same edict does not apply to defeated politicians. For example, we have one in Nova Scotia who was defeated, namely, the premier of that province, and they made him a Senator. He now draws senatorial pay, which is sufficient. He is also serving as president of Dalhousie university. It seems there are no restrictions on moonlighting for defeated Liberal politicians, but let a fisherman decide that he is starving as a lobster fisherman, and when he asks the minister to please renew his licence even though he must do some other form of fishing, the minister says, "No way, you cannot hold down two jobs. You must make up your mind." Those are the words he used when the scallop fishermen came here from Digby, Nova Scotia. When they came before the committee, what did the minister say? He would not even appear to meet with them right here in Ottawa, and yet he talks about consultation. The minister should hide his head in shame-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: -because he refused to consult with the people who were being legislated against by him and his department, when they came here to the capital at their own expense to meet with him and his associates. They were refused any right to discuss their problems.
We submit there was no consultation. This was evident during the committee's hearings last session on the bill to amend the Fisheries Act. At that time province after province came forward to testify they had not been consulted despite the fact that the bill dealt in part with pollution and environmental control, areas of shared provincial responsibility. Consequently, a Progressive Conservative government, which we hope to have soon in Canada, would do its utmost to maintain a close and continuing liaison with the fishermen, the industry and the provinces so that their viewpoints would be taken into account in the drafting and implementing of present and future fishery policies. No more do we want to hear the following complaint, as expressed by the Halifax Chronicle-Herald:
The federal officials appear disposed these days to think only in terms of handouts when it comes to maritime needs.
Thus, it is with some regret that one measures the success of this Liberal government's fisheries policies. The potential brought forth by the declaration of the 200-mile limit is enormous, but federal government inaction in fishery development could negate the achievement of optimum benefit from this limit.
Canada now has the opportunity to become the world's largest exporter of seafood products during the next decade. Because of changing factors in the industry, it should be able to increase substantially the degree of processing of fisheries products. However, without a planned and positive approach to the major policy issues facing this industry, which issues 1 outlined in my remarks earlier today, and the elimination of present uncertainty, many of the available opportunities may not be realized. A realization of these opportunities is critical to the creation of additional jobs and the establishment of a solid economic base for the fishing industry so that it can compete in all world markets in the years ahead.
We need a policy which would encourage investment in the fisheries by any and all Canadians. The minister has made public statements to the effect that only practising fishermen could and should invest in fishing vessels. He is on record as stating this. I cannot understand where the minister obtained such a policy. For example, does the minister believe that only bankers should own shares in banks, that only miners should own shares in mines, that only architects should own shares in buildings? The minister's proposal is ridiculous and just does not make any sense. While we on this side agree that fishermen should be encouraged to invest to a greater degree in their own ships, the fact remains that the present fleet will require a great deal of capital for replacement and expansion when appropriate. Rather than restricting the classes of investors, the government should be encouraging a broadening of the investor base. This is the concept on which private industry is based. It is the only concept which assures the greatest participation of Canadians in the growth of this important primary industry.
The minister cannot continue on his present course without bringing disaster to our area. It does not take an economic genius to realize that one cannot substantially inflate prices and costs, ban production, as the minister has done by freezing licences for the inshore fleet, the lobster fishermen and the scallop fishermen, increase taxes, and expect vigorous, healthy production. They are just not compatible. Only intellectual basket cases in the realm of economic reasoning would follow the course the minister is pursuing at present. For example, in the United States, with a population of 235 million people, the deficit this year is predicted as being $29 billion. In Canada, with a population of only 23 million people, we are facing a declared $13 billion deficit which may end up at $15 billion. This course can lead only to the total disruption of our productive capacity.
In conclusion, when the minister is free of his joint responsibilities as Minister of Fisheries and the Environment and is able to devote all his energies to our fisheries problems, I hope

January 23, 1979

he will give some thought along the lines I have mentioned toward its greater progressive development.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, the party to which I have the honour and good fortune to belong has long been urging the establishment of a separate department of fisheries. To that extent we welcome this bill. We would welcome it with more open arms if it were confined to the division of the Department of Fisheries and the Environment into its two component parts, environment and fisheries. But this bill is a grab bag. It has many other components with which 1 do not propose to deal at any great length.
The hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) has spoken with experience as a background, with knowledge gained from that experience, and from close study of the problems. He spoke about the fishing problem on the east coast. I propose to deal only briefly with some of the fishing problems on the west coast. In due course some of my colleagues from the west coast will wish to make their contributions to that particular area.
In beginning my comments, I hope-and this is something of a more general nature-the minister will be able to provide the House and Canadians with some account of where we stand in our bilateral talks with the United States on the matter of fisheries and boundaries. One hears conflicting rumours as to what state the boundary talks are in, and it may very well have been decided that they should go to arbitration on the east coast. According to an announcement made approximately two weeks ago, it was decided by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson), I hope in conjunction and collaboration with the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc), to leave the west coast problems aside for the time being and deal with the east coast. They are both difficult problems, and no one will deny that.


An hon. Member:: What about the north coast?


Donald W. Munro: Of course there is the north coast as well and the Gulf of Alaska. 1 do not really think the government is capable of handling these complex problems. It cannot handle our economy. It has run us into the ground on that. What sort of results will we receive out of these discussions, even with the best negotiators in the world? With the political direction they have, I doubt very much we will receive what we ought to receive out of these talks. Before the debate on second reading terminates in the House, I hope we will have some indication from the minister as to where the talks on the boundaries, fisheries and other resources stand.
On the subject of fisheries on the west coast, I will deal primarily with the environmental aspect. I feel I have an obligation to mention some of the problems on the west coast. They are current because within the next six weeks there will be a large fishery opening on the west coast, and there is utter confusion among the trailers and the gillnetters. Only today I received a telegram from the gillnetters concerning the new regulations which were issued after the gillnetters had re-equipped their vessels to go out and fish. They spent thou-
Government Organization
sands of dollars to bring their gillnet equipment up to date in order to go out and fish, and now the new regulations have [DOT] been issued. The same situation is hanging over the heads of the trailer men.
I have a feeling that both trailer men and gillnetters are small business men. Sometimes they are pretty big business men, but they are independent. These are the people this government should be encouraging rather than discouraging, and that is what is happening as a result of these regulations. Our trailer men are being regulated out of business. Our gillnetters are being driven out, so that all we will have left will be employees or hands working for the companies owning the ships. They will be hands on board the ships, recruited in the recruiting halls. This is only part of the fishing industry, but an important part, made up of independent fishermen who operate trailers, and the gillnetters. They must not be regulated out of existence, but they fear for the extermination of their kind. 1 hope there will be a re-examination of the regulations which have been drawn up and which are condemning them to extinction.
I have in the past made a number of comments about the forestry aspects of this bill and I should like to do so again this evening. I will leave the better part of that to my colleague, the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle). I am sure he will draw on his experience to bring to the attention of the House and the Canadian public some of the disasters brought on by this government through its neglect of the forestry industry, and particularly by its attack on forest research programs of the current department and the department that will be taken over by the Minister of State (Environment) (Mr. Marchand).
I am sure the government will be bound to reply in the usual way by stating it has done wonders for the forestry industry, yet it cuts back on a number of important forestry research programs in the interest of so called economies, short run economies, I might add.
The same can be said, of course, about cutbacks in fisheries research programs run by the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. Again, these are short-term economies. It defeats me how this government can rationalize cutbacks in research programs aimed at increasing productivity in a particular sector. I just do not and cannot understand that. I am sure the Canadian public, particularly those who have devoted their lives to these programs, will ask themselves similar questions.
If these cutbacks were related to research projects in areas where they may or may not contribute in the long run to the economy, I could understand the government taking no risks at a time of restraint. Anyone can understand that attitude. However, there are many programs at this time of restraint which could have been cut as they are not productive and do not contribute in the long term to growth and development in our economy. Yet this government chose to cut back on productive research programs. What I am saying is that when

January 23, 1979
Government Organization
research is virtually certain to add to the GNP we should not have cutbacks, as has been the case in respect of fisheries research programs on both coasts.
Let me make one final comment on the fisheries side now that I have found out, according to this bill, that "whales is fish." They ain't, Mr. Speaker, but according to this bill "whales is fish."


An hon. Member:: They are mammals.


Donald W. Munro: I know they are mammals, but for the purposes of this bill and this minister a whale is a fish. This minister is going to be responsible for the Canadian attitude in respect of the whaling community of the world. For the time being, and only for the time being, he will be speaking for Canada at the International Whaling Commission. I wondered for a time whether whales would fall on the environmental side or on the fisheries side, but I discovered after looking at the small print that they fall within the purview of the Minister of Fisheries. That being so, it is no wonder, at the International Whaling Conference in London recently, Canada's attitude caused a certain amount of dismay.
Although we are no longer a whaling nation-we have not been for years but at one time we did have a great whaling fleet-Canada regularly argues in support of and votes with Japan, which is a whaling nation. Canada supports the taking of whales, that largest of the earth's mammals, although it is a fish as far as this minister is concerned. It is the largest of the earth's mammals and is on the verge of extinction. There has been practically a universal call for the cessation of whaling on the high seas. I see the minister shaking his head. Obviously he just has not been listening. He has plugs in both ears. The fact remains that Canada, although not a whaling nation, is supporting and contributing to the taking of whales on the high seas in a manner which is completely inexplicable. I will now leave the minister with his whales which he does not know are mammals, and will turn to the purely environmental aspects of this bill.
It seems to me that the department of the environment created by this bill will not really have the responsibility commensurate with the name. What the bill says is one thing, and what it does not say is another. I would draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the throne speech of October 8, 1970, in which the Governor General, in outlining the programs of the government of the day, said:
There will be proposed the establishment of a department to be concerned with the environment and the husbanding of those renewable resources that are a part and dependent upon it, with a mandate for the protection of the biosphere.
I would draw your attention to that final phrase, "with a mandate for the protection of the biosphere."
That legislation was brought forward that year also in an omnibus bill. The bill eventually became Chapter 42, 1970 Elizabeth II. Like the present bill it was cited as the Government Organization Act of 1970. It did set up on that occasion, as it appears at page 847 of the Consolidated Statutes of 1970, 1971 and 1972, the Department of the Environment. Among

the things that department was intended to do, and in conformity with the undertaking given in the Speech from the Throne, and included in its duties and powers, was the protection and enhancement of the quality of the natural environment. At that time the department covered fisheries off our sea coasts and inland fisheries.
Let me draw your attention again to that phrase "protection and enhancement", because that will come up again as we continue our consideration. First let me deal with this mandate for the protection of the biosphere. I must ask myself where the mandate is for the protection of the biosphere when the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is responsible for the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act and the Northern Inland Waters Act? Where is that mandate to protect the biosphere when the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources is responsible for the Atomic Energy Control Act and, I believe, nuclear waste, a matter which we considered in the standing committee on national resources, not in the committee on the environment? The disposal of nuclear waste is an environmental concern. Is that the mandate which this minister will exercise?
I would ask also where that mandate is when the Department of Transport is responsible for the Canada Shipping Act and, more important, the oil pollution prevention regulations stemming therefrom? The Department of Transport also names a delegate to the International Maritime Co-operation Organization where pollution, among other things, is not very high on the agenda. Is this the mandate that the Department of the Environment is going to exercise?
The Department of Agriculture is responsible for the Pest Control Products Act. Is there no pollution there, and is it not an environmental concern? The Department of National Health and Welfare is, ironically, responsible for the Environmental Contaminants Act. What is the Department of Environment doing? All its responsibilities have been farmed out or have been assumed in the past by other departments. Where then is this mandate to protect, as indicated in the Speech from the Throne and as the original bill says-"the protection and enhancement of the quality of the natural environment"?
If the word is protect in accordance with the terminology in the Speech from the Throne, why was the word "protection" deleted in this particular bill and another word presented in its place? The word here is "preservation". The original bill which was passed in 1970 provided that the minister shall be responsible for "the protection and enhancement of the environment." Now we find that among the duties, powers and functions of the Minister of the Environment is the "preservation and enhancement of the environment."
I wonder if the minister understands the difference between these two words, or is there a difference in his mind? Is this just a drafting error? To my way of thinking the preservation of something as distinct from the protection of something means that we are pretty well satisfied with the way it is and we are going to preserve it as such. That is the role of the
January 23, 1979

Minister of the Environment, to preserve it the way it is and, on occasion, to ensure its enhancement.
I find that particular change in terminology unusual. It occurs in both the English and the French portions of the bill. In the earlier bill on the French side it reads:

-the protection and enhancement of the quality of the natural environment-

In the new bill it reads:

-the preservation and enhancement-

This occurs not just once, but twice. It occurs not only under clause 14 which is a rewriting of section 5 of the original act, but also in clause 6, the revised version of section 6 in the original act. The Minister of the Environment in exercising his powers shall, "promote and encourage the institution of practices and conduct leading to the better preservation"-not protection, but preservation-"and enhancement of environmental quality". This may appear insignificant, but I hope the minister will be able to explain why the wording has been changed, because preservation has a static ring about it whereas protection is a more aggressive activity, to my way of thinking. I am sure that some of us will be watching very carefully to see whether he does in fact explain the distinction which must be there, or will this be another cace of 74 amendments as occurred in the Bank Act?
How many amendments to the bill is the government going to bring down before we get through the committee? On many occasions we have had bills drafted and brought down hurriedly. I do not know why that is the case with this bill, but I will bet you-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hurriedly? Five years?


Donald W. Munro: How many?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Five years.


Donald W. Munro: And still there will be amendments brought down by the government, and it may even change that word "preservation" back to "protection".


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You can't trust them.


Donald W. Munro: No, you cannot.
Another matter I would like to draw to the minister's attention deals with pollution control. I notice among the responsibilities of the minister the responsibility for drawing up objectives and standards relating to environmental quality and to control pollution. That is in the revision of section 5. If one sets that against the mandate stipulated in the Speech from the Throne in 1970, to protect the biosphere, is the establishment of objectives and standards going to be the only role of the Minister of the Environment?
Government Organization
Will the minister be able to enforce the standards or will he get other departments to enforce them? How will the minister be sure that other departments will follow the objectives and standards set down by his department unless he has the whip hand in this particular bill? I understand from his little gesture that he is not too sure. If the role is simply to establish objectives and standards, I wonder where in this bill or in the original act the minister finds the power to enforce conformity to those objectives and standards.
In almost every bill that we consider we have a "shall" or a "may". Here we have a "may". Clause 6(2) of the bill reads as follows:
For the purposes of carrying out his duties and functions related to environmental quality, the Minister of the Environment may, by order, with the approval of the governor in council, establish guidelines for use by departments, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada-
This is a "may" proposition. Will the minister introduce an amendment to change that "may" to "shall", or is he content with the "may"? Is this to be a wishy-washy department that only has the power to exhort the other departments, and will it produce guidelines only if it feels so inclined? It may-it is not mandatory that they should do so.
In 1970 we learned that a ministry of the environment would be established with a mandate for the protection of the biosphere. That cannot be done with a "may"; the only way it can be done is with a "shall".
I must therefore ask how effective these guidelines are likely to be even if they are produced? Was this "may" intended or was it a slip of the drafter's pen? In French it is "peut". There is no obligation involved to draw up these guidelines. I do not know whether we have created a department without teeth, or have taken the teeth out of a department that was already there. It would take a longer comparison than is permitted to us of the original bill of 1970 with the bill before us today to find out whether those components of it which relate to the environment are stronger or whether they are the same and have merely been transferred. Are there any "shalls" in the 1970 bill?
I see, Mr. Speaker, that the Department of Transport is responsible for marine pollution. In committee 1 asked the minister if he could produce for me a list of locations of all the pollution-fighting equipment on the west coast. He was good enough to do that, and the result was a thick print-out from a computer under the name NEELS, I think it was, giving an indication of the placement of clean-up material for oil spills. The equipment listed, however, was in the hands of Esso, to clear up their particular oil spills around their off-loading docks, or of Shell or of Texaco. Despite the size of the document it was apparent to me that the extent of the government's foresight to deal with any pollution that happened on the east coast or the west coast was practically nil.
This government will not even assist those people doing research into clean-up procedures. There are two of these in my area, one related to woodchips. It is a very good system if

January 23, 1979
Government Organization
the woodchips are dry and, of course, woodchips go up and down the coast all the time. It would require a command structure to divert those woodchips over to the spilled area. They would absorb, they would agglomerate, and they could be set on fire. Of course it will require research to prove that- I do not know whether it would be the Department of Transport or the Department of Fisheries and the Environment- and to permit some authority to divert some of the woodchips coming down the coast to the oil spill area and to see that they are spilled.
The problem of spilling them, getting them out over the oil spill, has not been solved. I do not know whether you would pull up the sides. It has been suggested that a helicopter could probably blow a lot of them off, and that is probably right. One system that is being worked on is a grab bucket which would be lowered from the helicopter. These things do not grow on apple trees, Mr. Speaker; they have to be developed, but no assistance is being given to the man who is working on this. The Department of National Defence is prepared to take him out and allow a small research project to be carried on within a boom in a contained area. He has appealed to the Department of Fisheries and the Environment and to the Department of Transport, but he does not really know where to go.
These are real problems, Mr. Speaker. Petroleum products are being shipped up and down our coast every day of the year, and one day there is going to be a disaster. There is no question in my mind about that, and we are not ready for it despite the NEELS.
Another type of experiment is being carried out. Someone has developed a form of sponge-polyurethane I think it is- which is specially treated to absorb oil and resist water. I have seen the experiment on a small scale. It is called "grab oil", which is self-explanatory. The product looks like sponge rubber. Within a matter of seconds of being dropped into a substance with oil floating on top, it sucks up the oil, leaves the water, and then the oil can be recovered. It can absorb 17 to 20 times its weight in oil, depending on the specific gravity of the oil. There is, of course, the question of storage of this sop-up equipment and the developer has put his mind to this question. It should probably be stored in Comox where it could readily be picked up and then dropped on site. The material is fairly bulky, so a system of compacting it would have to be developed to ensure easy storage.
These experiments are worthwhile, Mr. Speaker. The two people who have developed them to this point are anxious for assistance in research but they are not getting any, except from the Department of National Defence. If the cost of such research is compared to the cost of cleaning up of the Amoco Cadiz, the Torry Canyon, the Arrow and Van Lean spills, obviously it would be money well spent.
The minister may be charged with drawing up guidelines or establishing norms and procedures, but he is not charged with implementing any of this. This is the great defect that I see in the creation of the Department of the Environment as set out in the bill. 1 do not even see that it would be charged with

responsibility of ensuring that research takes place in the areas to which I have referred. There is no indication in the bill that it is reponsible for research into the standards it sets, and for making sure that the standards are reasonable.
Another question is the standards in respect to domestic storage of nuclear waste, and I stress that, Mr. Speaker- domestic storage of nuclear waste. Are they to be developed in the Department of the Environment and submitted to the Atomic Energy Control Board for application? Does the Department of the Environment supervise the implementation of these criteria for the disposal of nuclear waste, or is that left entirely in the hands of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources? Does the Department of the Environment have any responsibility for the environmental aspects of the external sales of CANDU reactors and the disposal of the nuclear waste generated from those sales? I suspect not. Therefore I feel that the Department of the Environment as developed here, set up and put in charge of this particular minister, is not really a very effective department.
We also heard criticisms of the application by Norlands Petroleum for exploration drilling in Lancaster Sound. The hearings were held in October and November of last year. These criticisms were legitimately made by those who participated in hearings at Pond Inlet. Is the minister going to put to rest the misgivings of those concerned interveners? Why must financial limitations be placed on those who wish to intervene? Why were not some of the hearings held here in Ottawa? Must all interveners go into the area of Pond Inlet for their interventions?
The short notice and failure to disclose full information within the time limits are another criticism. Is the minister going to satisfy those who have levelled these criticisms? I am sure the minister has had letters from a variety of sources outlining, specifying, and setting forth these various criticisms.
There was also the pervasive feeling, and this is a strange one, among those who intervened that the applicant was going to be allowed to drill in any event unless the interveners could prove that the application would endanger the environment. Surely this is a reversal of the process of natural justice. Is it not? Surely the applicant should have to prove that his activities are not going to damage the environment. These are answers the Minister of the Environment will have to give. If not, he will certainly be asked these questions in committee.
The whole principle needs to be restated that the applicant must be required to prove that his activity will not offend any of the laws of Canada or any of the criteria, standards, or objectives set up by the ministry of the environment, and not the other way around. The interveners should not have to prove that the applicant may or might. Damage is always possible. Both sides recognize this. The burden of proof lies with the applicant.
There is another criticism. It became apparent during those hearings that some government agencies wished to appear during the second hearings. However, they could do so only if
January 23, 1979

invited by the Department of the Environment. Why should they not be permitted to appear as other interveners? Possibly it is because it would destroy some of the mystique, the powers of the government, if a government department had the effrontery to interfere.
I would also like to speak about the Oceanographic Institute at Pat Bay and Bedford. I think this also falls within the Ministry of Fisheries. It could create problems. I am sorry to come back to fisheries. I thought I might have dealt with this at the beginning. I will deal with it very briefly, because my time is fast running out.
Is there not a danger that these institutes might be focused exclusively on fisheries because they come under the Minister of Fisheries, or be neglected because they fall between stools and serve a great number of departments? I hope the minister realizes they serve a great number of functions of government. They deal with ocean currents, food chains, ocean temperatures, seismic and geological work. They are also involved in international programs on atmospheric conditions. These are important. The fisheries aspects of them are also important. There is no question about that. However, there must be some way of making sure that these two important institutes, and I am glad they were not touched by the recent cuts, are given every opportunity to fulfil the functions for which they have been equipped in staff and material, and to make their full contribution to the Canadian economy.
In closing I would like to deal briefly with clause 33 of the bill because it is a weirdie.
Mir. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. To do so the hon. member will have to seek unanimous consent, because his time has expired. Is there consent to allow the hon. member to complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald W. Munro: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The wording in clause 33 of this bill may be a drafting obscurity or an intentional obscurity. Once again I ask where the mandate is to protect the biosphere? It will take some very careful comparisons to sort out those acts for which the Minister of Fisheries is responsible as Minister of Fisheries and the Environment under the old act and the Minister of the Environment is responsible for under the new act. I wonder if there are any acts for which the Minister of the Environment is responsible. Perhaps we might discover that in committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Minister of State for the Environment.


Steve Eugene Paproski: A little late for the news, but its okay.


Mr. Marchand:: It's all right Steve, don't worry about the TV. We are doing okay.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate
Government Organization
tonight on Bill C-35. As far as the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc) and I are concerned, this is a very important step forward.
I tried to listen very carefully to the points made by the various speakers in the debate today. I will note them very carefully. Undoubtedly I will not be able to answer all the questions raised by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro). As he knows, we will deal with those in committee in the greatest of detail. If I were to deal in detail with the questions he and other members raised tonight, there would be no time left.
Eight years ago the government affirmed its concern for Canada's physical environment when it proposed to parliament the creation of the Department of the Environment. That department brought together for the first time concern with the quality of the environment and concern with the sound management of our renewable resources. Today, in the light of eight years' experience, and looking ahead to the problems and the opportunities of the 1980s, the government is seeking the creation of separate departments for the environment and fisheries and oceans. This change is, first and foremost, a recognition that each of these areas is of such importance to the present and future well-being of Canadians as to require the full-time dedication of a minister of the Crown and of a distinct department.
My colleague responsible for fisheries will tell the House what has been done and what awaits to be done in the exciting areas of fisheries and the oceans. Therefore, despite a temptation as a British Columbian to speak of the great prospects for the salmon fishery, I will not speak about fisheries other than to assure hon. members that my colleague and I, and our respective departments, will continue to work in closest collaboration because of the inseparability of the fisheries resource and the health of the physical environment at large.
The past year since the decision in principle was taken to separate fisheries and environment has been an opportunity for us to think afresh about the mandate, the orientation, and the responsibility of an environment department at the federal level. We have done so in recognition of the changing environmental problems which face this nation, of the greatly enhanced capacity of the provinces to deal with the environmental concerns within their jurisdictions, of the changing nature of federal-provincial relations, of the finite nature of so many of our resources, and of the growing recognition of the need to have our economic development take place in a manner consistent with a sound physical environment. Thus, what this bill proposes is not just the division of a department but the creation of a new department of the environment to provide leadership which will enable this country to meet the environmental challenges of tomorrow.
The bill before the House would charge the minister of the environment with the formidable and positive task of preserving and enhancing the quality of the Canadian environment for the benefit of present and future generations. Three goals

Government Organization
spring from this task. First, through his knowledge of the physical environment, and his authorities, the minister has an important responsibility for contributing to the quality of life of all Canadians, based on a society in harmony with its environment; second, he is expected to safeguard man's health and property from harmful substances and environmental changes, whether natural or man-made; third, the minister must encourage resource productivity through the conservation and wise use of renewable resources-our forests, our water, our wildlife.
There is often a perception of dichotomy, of opposition between protection of the environment and development, Canada is a growing and developing country. We need jobs for our people and we need many-though not all-of the things which jobs create. But development is not indiscriminate growth. Development must, by definition, respect the base on which it is built, since otherwise it cannot be sustained.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I see it as my responsibility to contribute to the environmentally sound development of this country; the three objectives I have stated come together in harmony around that theme. Without sustained productivity and use of our natural resources there is no development possible for this country. I am thus concerned with the use of our resources, now and in the future.
My responsibility is to help make the difficult choices, which can only be done on the basis of sound knowledge of the present and longer-term effects of man's activities on his physical environment. That knowledge lies to a considerable extent within Environment Canada, and the good judgment which comes from such knowledge will be brought to bear on all the decisions of government. The Department of the Environment will thus contribute to the economic development objectives of this government and of this country. It is the repository of data and knowledge which others fail to take into account at their peril.
An environment department with a strong environmental policy is an essential element in the whole social and economic well-being of Canada and Canadians, and it is to be strengthened by this bill.
How is this to come about? Mr. Speaker, you will see in the bill that the Minister of the Environment, in addition to his existing responsibilities, will be empowered to co-ordinate "the policies and programs of the Government of Canada respecting the preservation and enhancement of the quality of the natural environment." More specifically, we are setting forth in legislation, rather than cabinet decision, that an early assessment must be made of all new federal projects, programs and activities for their potential adverse effects on the quality of the environment. The federal environmental assessment review office, whose executive chairman reports directly to me, now has panels set up on some 20 federal projects to scrutinize their environmental acceptability. With the passage of this legislation, I propose to re-examine the environmental assessment and review process to ensure that it continues to play an ever more effective role in screening federal activities.

Earlier in this debate the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) said, in effect, that proposed drilling in Arctic waters would not be subject to environmental assessment under this bill.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Are you sure that was what I said?


Len Marchand: I listened to what the hon. gentleman said. I can assure the House that this is not the case. Federal projects are considered to be those which are initiated by federal departments and agencies, those for which federal funds are solicited, and those involving federal lands or waters. Since the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development would bear responsibility for seabed drilling in Arctic waters, any such proposals are subject to the review process.
It is evident that actions and regulatory activities undertaken by other departments and agencies can have a profound effect, for better or for worse, on the environment. Emissions from motor vehicles, for example, which account for half our urban air pollution, are controlled by means of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, administered by the Department of Transport. The Canada Shipping Act governs discharges from vessels. I do not propose to take that over; perhaps that is what the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich was suggesting. The Atomic Energy Control Board regulates the nuclear industry.
A section of the proposed act empowers the Minister of the Environment, on the basis of his knowledge of the physical environment, to establish, with the approval of the governor in council, environmental guidelines for use by other departments, boards and agencies of the government. This constitutes a second important lever for ensuring that the actions of the federal government itself, and of those whose activities it regulates, are taken in an environmentally responsible way.
Not all our forward-looking activity, by any means, is dependent on the new bill, but because it is relevant to a new department looking ahead to the eighties I would like to tell the House that we are re-examining in a very fundamental way our whole pollution control strategy. This examination involves a rethinking of the federal role and responsibility in environmental protection, taking into account provincial capabilities, the strong desire expressed by all jurisdictions to avoid unnecessary and costly duplication of work at the federal and provincial levels, and the requirement to look to the socioeconomic impact of all pollution control proposals. My officials will begin to discuss the new strategy with their provincial counterparts in the next few months. Depending on the outcome of those discussions, which I am confident will be welcomed by the provinces, I expect to propose to my cabinet colleagues a number of significant amendments to the legislation on which our environmental protection activity depends.
Let me say a word about federal-provincial relations in the environmental field. While the federal power is clear in respect of certain of our environmental and resource activities, such as the management of fisheries, and uncontested in others on the ground of common sense, such as the provision of weather
January 23, 1979

services, a large part of the work in which we are engaged falls into that difficult area of shared or even unclear jurisdiction.
The government is determined to work out with the provinces the appropriate goals for the two levels of government in the environmental field. This re-examination should be unfettered by past positions and differences or by narrow interpretations of jurisdictional rights. We are prepared to examine what is the best division of responsibilities for today's needs, based on the criteria of common sense and economy. The basic question should be who can best do the job needed to ensure the health of the Canadian environment for the present and future enjoyment of all Canadians, and if the answer is that both the federal and provincial governments must do a particular job in shared fashion, as is often the case, we shall work out an equitable sharing of that work. I am confident that my provincial counterparts welcome this approach and will make it work.
Were time to permit, I would like to draw the attention of hon. members to many other activities of my department. I think particularly of the work of the Canadian Forestry Service, on which I had occasion to comment at some length last November 24 during the budget debate. The Canadian Forestry Service is one of the oldest and most renowned components of the Canadian government. Because of the importance 1 attach to the federal role in forestry I have set out new directions for the service so that it can make a direct and essential contribution to the economic development and sound environmental management of the forest resource. It is therefore very much a part of the new approach which the new department of the environment will be taking as it faces the challenges of the decade ahead.
The bill before us reaffirms the government's commitment to the preservation and enhancement of environmental quality in its broadest sense. It gives the minister of the environment a clear mandate to provide leadership and direction on environmental matters within the federal structure. I am happy to accept this challenge, and I hope this bill will receive speedy passage.
Early in his remarks the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich talked about forestry disasters. I would like him to spell out those disasters. He talked about research in forestry. I am very committed to research in forestry. If the hon. member were to examine the record he would find that not one of the research establishments across the country has been touched. We have six regional laboratories across the country. There is one very near Victoria, as the hon. member knows. There is one in Edmonton and another in Sault Ste Marie. There is one in Quebec city, one in Fredericton and another in St. John's, Research has not been touched.


Steve Eugene Paproski: What about Petawawa?


Len Marchand: The hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) asks about Petawawa. Petawawa was enhanced. We increased the number of people at Petawawa. We accepted some of the suggestions of the Conservative party with regard to cutting government spending. We cut govern-
Government Organization
ment spending by $2.5 billion. My department had to cut $40 million from a budget of $275 million. We listened to the suggestions of the Conservative party, and when we made cuts in my department we cut across the board. There was no area in which we could not cut, but one area which was sacred was forestry research, about which the hon. member talked. We did not cut one research lab across the country. In the case of Petawawa, we were going to close it at the beginning, but after representations from a number of people in the valley and others from across the country, we decided to keep Petawawa and to enlarge it. We are moving the Forestry Management Research Institute to Petawawa. We are moving the Forest Fire Research Institute to Petawawa.
Petawawa will become one of the foremost forest research establishments in the country. However, because of the cuts we have made, we have heard some comments from the Conservative party. They would cut 60,000 civil servants, over the next three years.


An hon. Member:: No.


Len Marchand: I can check the record, and it is very clear.


An hon. Member:: "Attrition" is the word.


Len Marchand: The record shows very clearly that the Conservative party would cut 60,000 civil servants.


Donald W. Munro: No.


Len Marchand: I have read that brown envelopes are being sent by some civil servants to some hon. members. I would like to say to those civil servants who are passing those brown envelopes around that they had better think again. If they think they are going to get a deal from the party opposite should, God forbid, it form a government, they had better think again because 60,000 is much more than the few hundred who would perhaps eventually be let go by us, because we have said that we are going to have a very human policy in terms of the people whose positions will be declared surplus.
We will take a human position because I think this country has a very good and competent civil service. We have a good group of foresters and environmentalists, and a very good group in the atmospheric environment service. My department and this country are blessed with a competent civil service, and I was very concerned when I was informed that there had to be cuts in my department. I was concerned not only about programs but also about individuals, many of whom have given many years of their lives in dedicated service to the government. I wanted to make sure that those people in my department were treated fairly and had every opportunity to find other jobs, either within my department or elsewhere within the government. I think that is a very humane and just policy. It recognizes the great talents which exist in the civil service of our country.
The hon. member also talked about oil spills and about how we might handle oil spill disasters. He talked about NEELS, the information system we have. I think we have a very good

January 23, 1979
Government Organization
system. We know where every piece of equipment in this country is. We know where every piece of equipment in the United States is. There is no country in the world which really has the wherewithal to handle a major disaster.
The hon. member talked about the Amoco Cadiz and the disaster involving that 153,000 ton tanker. There is no country in the world which singularly has the capability to handle that kind of oil spill. We do not-I say that very clearly-but in conjunction with the United States and with other agencies 1 think we could do pretty well. With the system we have in place we know where the equipment is and how we can get that equipment together.
With the talent and equipment that we have in Canada we are in as good a position as any country in the world to handle major disasters, things with which I have been concerned since I have taken the job of Minister of State for the Environment. My job is to prevent these disasters from occurring. I know the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) will be speaking a little later in the debate, but I understand-he can correct me if I am wrong-that he is in favour of the Kitimat oil pipeline as proposed. I understand he is on record as having said he is in favour of the Kitimat pipeline project, but if I am wrong, let him tell me so. As Minister of State for the Environment I have stated that I am not in favour of the Kitimat oil pipeline.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Len Marchand: I went to cabinet and got a very strong decision from cabinet in support of the presentation I made in which I stated that, on environmental grounds, we should not permit the Kitimat oil pipeline to be built. That decision still stands, I think that on environmental grounds it would be courting absolute disaster for us to suggest we can go ahead with the Kitimat oil pipeline.
The decision that I made was later vindicated by the National Energy Board when they held their hearings on whether an oil pipeline would serve Canadian needs. They said that it would not. That made me very happy because, in my view, for as long ahead as we can see, the Kitimat oil pipeline will not be built. The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River is in favour, or if he has some connection to that business which favours the building of that pipeline, that is for him to say, but if he said anything different, 1 would be happy to hear it, because I would be happy to have his support for the decision that I and my colleagues have made against the building of the Kitimat pipeline.
The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich spoke also about drilling in the south Davis Strait and Lancaster Sound, and how we handled the hearings. I suppose that he will probably be weak-kneed with respect to the letters and representations that were made to him. I receive many representations from all sides as Minister of State for the Environment. I have industry telling me, "Look at those crazy environmentalists, get them out of the way, they are standing in the way of development."

On the other hand I get environmentalists telling me, "Look, you are in the hands of industry and you are doing everything industry tells you." That is a lot of bull.


An hon. Member:: Careful.


Len Marchand: I told you that before. It is a parliamentary word, as was ruled by Mr. Speaker. Your question of privilege did not stand up.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Len Marchand: As Minister of State for the Environment I have said earlier that the environmental aspect review process should be my direct responsibility. We held ten days of hearings at Lancaster Sound. I think that is pretty fair. We went literally to every community. Members of the panel lived in some of the communities before the hearings were held so as to acquaint themselves with the feelings of the community and with their problems, and so that in their assessment later in their report to me they would be able to give me a fair and honest opinion of what were the concerns in those communities. That is of major importance to me. Incidentally, I will be receiving the report within the next couple of weeks and I will be reporting on it to my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Faulkner). Believe me, I will go over it with utmost care, and I will make my recommendations to the minister with utmost concern for the environment and for those people who are living in those communities and who might be affected by major oil spills.
The panel said it would be okay to go ahead with the work at south Davis Strait if certain conditions were met. That work can go ahead because, if there were to be a major oil spill, the flow of the water there could cope with it. We have set down very strict conditions under which drilling can go ahead in the south Davis Strait. They must first submit their proposal to the regulating agency, which is the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, a plan of the clean-up and how they propose to drill, in other words, an environmental plan, before they are allowed the right to drill.


An hon. Member:: What about NEELS?


Len Marchand: What are you talking about? I told you about that before. NEELS is all right.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Why are you so angry?


Len Marchand: I am not angry. I am just getting going here, Mr. Speaker.
I have covered the waterfront on environmental issues. This is a department of which I enjoy being minister. I think it is a great department. In this new legislation we have a new mandate and powers that will be given to us to reach into areas that we have not reached before in a formal way. I am looking forward to the administration of this new department and to having the new powers. I am sure that my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment, is also looking forward to the new definition of powers he will have under the

January 23, 1979

new act on behalf of a vigorous fisheries department which he has put together. I hope this bill will receive speedy passage and that it will go to committee shortly where we will be able to answer any questions that any member of parliament might have.


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-35 may be called in short the Government Organization Act, 1978. As we all know, no doubt, from listening to a good deal of the debate today, it has ten parts. I wish to make some remarks on the first three parts which deal with the new department of fisheries and oceans. I am really glad that finally the minister got around to doing this, something for which we have been asking for a long time and something which, as I recall, the government had promised in 1974, namely, the establishment of a separate department of fisheries.
The second part of the bill deals with the establishment of the fisheries and oceans research advisory council. I should like to say, as did my colleague, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Faour), that there is nothing wrong with changing the title to read the establishment of the fisheries and oceans research advisory council. It is a good thing. It is a realignment of what has been done in the past in this field. Perhaps I am naive in this because fishermen are a small minority of the total population in my riding, nevertheless they constitute one-industry communities, that is, fishing communities. Fine and decent people have to live off this hazardous occupation. Naturally such a body should be primarily dominated by scientific people.
Obviously the minister has agreed to become involved in more consultation with the fishermen to some degree. But I find it difficult to understand that the fishermen's unions or co-operatives on either coast are not represented in the 24 people who will comprise this advisory council. Also it is difficult to understand that clause 2 of the bill contains no room for fishermen from these organizations, or independent fishermen as such.
The two coasts of Canada are as different as night and day. The only common elements are the word "fishery" and the species or genus of fish. The minister should give more consideration to this fact and consult again with the fishermen. There must be some way of establishing a revolving membership as far as west coast and east coast fishermen are concerned, so that they can see the process scientists must go through when making terribly important decisions.
One does not have to know very much about any industry to realize that a basic principle of management is administration. A basic principle in the management of the fishing industry, of course, is scientific administration. The input of biologists and others is terribly important in order for us to realize the potential of certain areas, and to ensure the conservation practices of the department are carried out based upon the best available scientific evidence. It is not sufficient to have intermediaries or to send out pamphlets to fishermen and their
Government Organization
organizations. They should be part and parcel of the research advisory council, even though they are a minority and do not have any scientific expertise. Certainly they are the best people to become involved, rather than just the officials of the department.
The Minister of State for the Environment (Mr. Marchand) referred heatedly to the division which is taking place. He feels that he will have a new mandate. Perhaps I am an amateur, but I recognize how terribly important this division is. The minister alluded to the fact that there must be close co-operation between him and the proposed minister of fisheries and oceans. As I understand it, from a pollution point of view, inland waters and fisheries will remain under the control of the Minister of State for the Environment. The minister should use his power directly, in so far as he can, and indirectly on the international joint commission between Canada and the United States, in order to clean up the inland waters of Canada as quickly as possible, particularly the Great Lakes.
We must remember how the pollution of the Great Lakes affects fishermen on the east coast. Recently these fishermen have told me that pollution from the Great Lakes is flowing into the Northumberland Strait. This is a very serious handicap to the quantity and quality of fish they are able to catch. I do not know if this is true respecting the Gulf of St. Lawrence, but I imagine that its waters would be affected by pollution in the St. Lawrence. Certainly our inland waters should be watched very closely. Not only should these waters be monitored, but they should receive the attention of the Minister of State for the Environment so that the fisheries industry can develop to its fullest potential.
As far as the proposed department of fisheries and oceans is concerned, I mention in passing that my party was in favour of its creation. I do not know if the Tories were in favour of it in 1974, but 1 presume they were. It has been a little over two years since the 200-mile limit was set up. The establishment of this department is better late than never. The minister is being given a mandate to zero in more radically on the existent potential of the east and west coasts.
I have had difficulty with the minister concerning some matters, and I still have qualms about vessel insurance for fishermen and so on. He has assured me that in the final analysis I will be satisfied. 1 hope he is correct. The fishermen in my area are concerned about the change in the vessel insurance scheme, that perhaps its effectiveness will be somewhat diminished by putting it into private hands. I realize the minister has other options available to him. I hope he deals with this subject when he participates in this debate.
There are other areas which will be disputed concerning the management of fish stock and the licensing procedure. These matters were referred to by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse). The fishermen in Cape Breton realize that perhaps one cause of the depletion of the lobster fishery in Richmond is the existence of the causeway on the Canso Strait. Those who are more active on a regular lifetime basis in the lobster industry are being approached in an attempt to protect the depletion of their resource. The government is

January 23, 1979
Government Organization
tightening up or freezing licences in order to restrict the occasional or casual fisherman. Many fishermen feel the department has a moral obligation to buy back these licences at a fair price, since they were purchased in the past by independent fishermen, with the consent of the department. One must remember the money these independent fishermen invested.
I realize the questions I have raised this evening are not easy ones. I sympathize with those people who have become involved in the fishing industry on a part-time basis along with holding down other jobs. Now they find themselves faced with a change in circumstance. I am not saying that the policy is a bad one. Perhaps it will be a good one in the long run and will protect the lobster industry. But I feel everything possible should be done to buy back these licences and to make an arrangement to reimburse to some degree the fishermen who have invested in equipment and licences.
I am not saying that the minister and the department have not attempted to do somehing. I am just saying I have the feeling, from talking to the fishermen, that they have not gone far enough in this regard. I realize the minister has to operate within a budget, like the minister of every other department, but it is only in recent years that his budget has been growing fast enough, especially with the establishment of the 200-mile limit and with everyone beginning to see the great potential.
Having made that kind of constructive criticism, I want to pay the minister a compliment. It is not usual for members of the opposition to pay compliments to the people in power or to those in the official opposition when they do good things. By and large I think we are pretty fiery about some things, particularly about the way the Atlantic region has been treated by successive governments of this country. I have in mind particularly my own area, Cape Breton.
Let me say to the minister that, generally, I do not hesitate to say that I think he has begun to take on the large corporations in the Atlantic region, although I disagree with him in certain aspects.
Some of my fishermen at times get really bitchy about the whole licensing procedure. I hope that word is parliamentary, and I assume it is as it is in the dictionary. They also get upset about other policies, and I will be talking about the snow-crab licensing policy in a little while. Having talked to the offshore fisherman it is my opinion that this minister has attempted to take on the large corporations. Even a minister of fisheries in Nova Scotia, a very likeable and personable man, wrote a pretty strong and severe letter to me intimating that 1 was too much on the side of the federal government in this issue. This is a social and philosophical issue and I compliment the minister for his efforts, even though I disagree with him as to detail of policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Andrew Hogan: As a member of a socialist party who believes, like every other member of any socialist party in the western world, that we must have a strong private sector, I realize we

are living in a mechanized economy in which large corporations concentrate control in an effort to maximize profits. Let us take for example National Sea Products and the Nickerson Company. Their operations are carried on by very fine human beings, but the policies they advocate in the long run do not benefit 80 per cent of the fisherman in the inshore fisheries in the Atlantic region. I think the minister has grasped this situation. The policies they advocate benefit the large corporation. What is involved is not just private enterprise but, in addition, government controls. These fellows want to grow big and fast, and I refer to National Sea Products and Nickerson. They want a heck of a lot, and I almost used an unclerical word. They want government money before we are even sure that the fish stocks are being conserved and built up. Probably this is the nature of human beings. Certainly it seems to be the nature of private enterprise, which is concerned primarily with maximum profits.
These people do not take into consideration the social consequences which are so crucial in the Atlantic region, as pointed out by the hon. member for Humber-St George's-St. Barbe. There are about 2,000 part-time, full-time and occasional fishermen in Cape Breton. Most of them are part-time fisherman, just as the hon. member from Newfoundland suggested in respect of Newfoundlanders this afternoon.
The federal government has a primary responsibility in fisheries under the BNA Act, but there is room for diversity of views and for greater consultation with the provinces. I suggest there is perhaps room for a greater provincial share of responsibility in some aspects of fisheries. Nevertheless, it seems to me that in the long run, if not in the short run, the best economic policy would be for the federal government to pursue basic principles of management of fisheries in the Atlantic region.
The basic social principle is one of protecting inshore fisheries. This is particularly true when you remember that it is the inshore fisheries in the maritime provinces that support 80 per cent of our fisheries, helping to keep these communities together. I am not suggesting all these communities can be kept together.
There is a very strong economic argument or point of view that we should centralize in order to facilitate the large factory ships. To some extent they are taking species not ordinarily caught by our Canadian fleet. You can get too much of what appears to be a good thing from the point of view of the large corporations in that they are increasing production and making the industry more capital intensive, yet in the long run this creates all kinds of severe economic and social problems.
I have been observing the situation and have written to the Combines Investigation Branch to determine whether the Nickerson takeover of National Sea Products was within the law. I know the minister could not do much about this, but it is disheartening to know how long it takes before getting an answer from that branch. They keep telling me this is of high priority, and something about which they are concerned. They use a lot of technical language which does not give me any idea how the matter is progressing. It seems to me that the dominant policy and concern has to be in respect of inshore
January 23, 1979

fisheries, without suggesting that the offshore fisheries are not important to the Atlantic region and to the nation. There is a question of emphasis and a question of philosophy and social principle involved. In the long run I would say the matter of economics is important. I commend the minister for keeping these fellows at bay. I have in mind those "too big, too fast" people, as I am wont to call them.
Recently we held a seminar of fishermen on Cape Breton Island. About 120 fishermen attended. As I said earlier, we have about 2,000 fishermen on Cape Breton Island, in about 110 communities. I thought I should mention that during this debate because the fishing industry has been very vital in the past and I expect will continue to play a vital role in the future, even though coal is the most important resource in Cape Breton, with the steel industry also being a vital entity.
I have pleaded the case of the inshore fisheries rather successfully with Devco, and they are beginning to see the great potential for fishing in that area. Last year, for example, they had landing figures of 56,000 metric tons which had a total value of $18 million. That may not seem like a lot to some, but when one looks at the figures for the province of Quebec, which had a total landed value last year of $29 million, it is quite significant for a small island like Cape Breton. It reinforces the idea that there might be potential development which could be tapped in a very serious way, with the co-operation of the federal and provincial governments, Devco and, of course, the fishermen.
One of the comments at our seminar made by the maritime director for the federal fisheries department, Mr. Doug Johnston, was to tell the fishermen that they will not get participation in the industry unless they come together. It has become fashionable, for many reasons, to be anti-union, mostly because people are leaning more to the right and because some unions have abused their powers.
There were two priests in Nova Scotia some 50 years ago who had a philosophy, which I inherited, because I was brought up in the tradition of the St. Francis Xavier Antigon-ish movement, respecting co-operatives. They were considered to be communists, just as we in the New Democratic Party are considered by the extreme right-wingers as being proponents of the communist line. These men went about organizing the fishermen and, as a result, many co-operatives were formed.
I personally lean strongly toward that philosophy, but after 50 years there are still many fishermen who are not organized into co-operatives and who do not want to be. I think that this is primarily the jurisdiction of the provincial government, the whole question of unions and the civil aspects of the BNA Act, and the minister should use every occasion in this regard. I know that he has said this publicly, and that he does not want to come out for unions because a province such as Nova Scotia may set up such an association and pour $40,000 or $50,000 into it. To my mind this is the old situation of company unionism. It is very difficult to unionize independent fishermen, but if they are not going to form co-operatives, I believe this is their best alternative. It will give them a united voice in dealing with the ministry of fisheries at the federal level and
Government Organization
having some control over the future management and development of the fishing industry.
Having made that point, I am not saying there should be compulsory unionism, but that there is something wrong with the philosophy of the provincial governments of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. It does not mean that they have to join a union, but at least give them the right. After all, this is a democratic society, and if the fishermen decide to follow this course of action, then surely the provincial governments have the moral responsibility at least to say, "Look, we can no longer bar these people from the right to organize." Perhaps I am overdoing the point, but I believe it is important because there is no other way whereby we will get development in the fishing industry in the Atlantic region, both inshore and offshore, unless there is some kind of organization.
The snowcrab landing industry on the gulf side of Cape Breton has the potential of becoming the third fishery delicacy category in Nova Scotia after the scallop industry, which I believe has a value of approximately $58 million, and the lobster industry which has a value of $26 million. In Cape Breton last year there were 66 so-called exploratory licences given out for the snowcrab fishery. The figure for landing which was given to me at the seminar was $1.7 million.
This year there are 200 fishermen looking for a licence. We cannot have everybody rushing in, and there must be some form of restricted entry. It seems to me that the most equitable way of giving out these licences would be either through individual quotas or changing seasons. There could even be a modification of the size limit. There is here a potential source of discord between the fishermen and the federal Department of Fisheries if this is not handled well.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I think all elements of the industry should co-operate. It is not a contradiction to say that I want unionization or that I do not want the big corporations to take over. One cannot talk out of both sides of his mouth and say that he wants monopoly or semimonopoly conditions, and at the same time argue for free enterprise, but that is what some are doing when they say that they want these large corporations to concentrate to such a degree that they will be able to control the pricing, marketing, and production of the fisheries in the Atlantic regions. Mr. Speaker, I call it ten o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
[Stage Direction]
January 23, 1979
Adjournment Debate

Mr. Marke Raines (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, on December 8, 1978, during question period in the House I put a question to the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) on the reported salary of Knowlton Nash, the reader of the 11 p.m. National News on the CBC. First of all I asked how much the salary paid to Mr. Nash was, and I did not get an answer. I hope to get an answer tonight, Mr. Speaker.
I asked how the salary, rumoured to be $85,000 to $90,000 per year, could be justified. Even if we were not in a time of austerity-even if we were not trying to fight inflation at this time when workers everywhere are being asked to hold back on salary demands-such a salary for reading a 15 or 20-minute newscast five times a week, would be incredible. The Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) does not make $85,000 or $90,000 per year. That is more than just about anybody in Canada makes. That the management, the hierarchy of the CBC, should be so far removed from reality, is cause for great concern.
This is only the latest incident in the long history of the CBC's overspending and mismanagement that has strained the patience of the Canadian public, and of members of this parliament. I am calling for a complete public inquiry, financial and otherwise, into the operations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I am very curious about what they do with the half billion dollars they are gifted with each year by the Canadian taxpayer.
The CBC have made much of the fact that they are going to get $71 million less than they asked for, as a result of the latest budgetary cutbacks. The CBC asked for $593 million and are only going to get $522 million. Why, when they get so much of the taxpayers' money, are they virtually indistinguishable from the other Canadian network, that is, CTV?
I believe that when corporations, or people, get money from the public purse they should be accountable for that money. To me, what appears to be government policy of handing out taxpayers' money to any person or corporation, without accountability, is preposterous. It leads to bad management, inefficient operation, and a waste of money that is intolerable.
I think it would be worthwhile, Mr. Speaker, to read into the record portions of the Broadcasting Act of 1968, which was agreed to by all parties in the House of Commons.
Section 3(b) reads as follows:
the Canadian broadcasting system should be effectively owned and controlled by Canadians so as to safeguard, enrich and strengthen the cultural, political, social and economic fabric of Canada;
That broadcasting policy continues, as set out in section 3(d) as follows:
the programming provided by the Canadian broadcasting system should be varied and comprehensive and should provide reasonable, balanced opportunity for the expression of differing views on matters of public concern, and the programming provided by each broadcaster should be of high standard, using predominantly Canadian creative and other resources;
The act goes on to say in section 3(g):
the national broadcasting service should

(i) be a balanced service of information, enlightenment and entertainment for
people of different ages, interests and tastes covering the whole range of
programming in fair proportion,
I am sure that every Canadian would agree with the aims of the act, Mr. Speaker, but I also know that the CBC has been found wanting. As the member of parliament for the constituency of Burnaby-Seymour, I want the very best in broadcasting, Canadian and foreign. 1 believe that Canadians want their own national broadcasting service-as the CBC was set up to be-but Canadians are no longer willing to support a nationwide system of self-styled executives in broadloomed offices, safe in their lifetime jobs.
What we need in Canada is a quantum leap in communications. Quebec had its "quiet revolution." We need a quiet revolution in Canadian broadcasting. I am not talking about some timorous half-hour cooking show or some boring situation series. I mean a renaissance of information, of participation, of bringing out the best of the many cultures that make up Canada-a climate for interest in things other than the purely commercial.
I have had much communication, as we all have, with Canadians on this subject. They want programs that the entire family can watch at any hour of the day or night, without obscenity, and without the kind of senseless violence that has come to permeate the television screen.
So important is broadcasting, I believe, that we could change for the better the future of Canada, through better communication. I do not exaggerate when I say the future of Canada may depend on this.
Besides an inquiry and a complete reorganization of the CBC, I believe there should be a major inquiry into the entire broadcasting system in Canada. How far have broadcasting stations been allowed to stray from the promises they made when they were granted their licences? Why has broadcasting, which could be such a powerful medium for service, for understanding, for entertainment, deteriorated to the point where a broadcasting licence is now regarded simply as a licence to make money, in many cases?
The technology of the satellite age will have a widening impact in the next ten years, in television and in education. Broadcasting in Canada needs a whole new long look. In spite of the Canadian content regulations, broadcasters have not succeeded in giving talented Canadians an outlet. The attitude seems to be to throw on any old thing that is remotely Canadian, just to fulfill the requirement.
I must say in a number of instances the quality and integrity of the budgets of Crown corporations are insufficient to provide to the government and parliament information by which Crown corporations may be controlled and their performance assessed. As a member of the broadcasting committee since 1974, I can say that I and other members have received insufficient information on the budget of the CBC.
May I ask again tonight the question and now be told the exact salary of Knowlton Nash? I trust we will also learn of
January 23, 1979

the fringe benefits as well. Will the Department of the Secretary of State now take steps to ensure that the CBC uses its money more judiciously? Will that department use moral suasion and ensure that funds granted to the CBC, to wit, more than $500 million a year, will be used for furthering the broadcasting policy agreed to by all members of the House in 1967 and 1968?


Mr. Robert Daudlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: As hon. members know, Mr. Speaker, parliament established the mandate of the CBC and annually votes the amount of money within which the corporation must operate in seeking to fulfil this mandate. It is the responsibility of the corporation and its board of directors to manage its operations in such a way as to maximize the carrying out of this parliamentary mandate. In its day to day operations the CBC must compete in the industry in which it operates, and therefore must pay competitive rates in order to get the people it requires.
In the specific case of those matters relating to the appointment of Knowlton Nash to his new position, they are the subject of arbitration arising out of a grievance filed by the Canadian Union of Public Employees, and it would be improper for the CBC to comment on any aspect of Mr. Nash's appointment. This position is reinforced by the fact that the parties agreed that the arbitration proceedings would be held in camera, and the CBC has not received a copy of the arbitration report to this date.


SOCIAL INSURANCE-USE OF SIN
Mr. Jack Hare (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the hope of obtaining a more satisfactory answer to a question I posed to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Abbott) on December 11 regarding the use of social insurance numbers as identification devices in the processing of Canada Savings Bonds.
The question was based on a letter written by the previous minister of national revenue to a constituent in St. Boniface in which he stated that persons who did not wish to disclose their SIN when purchasing bonds could "invent a number themselves, or a number would be assigned to them by the bank. The then minister of national revenue cited a press report of an interview with a Bank of Canada information officer named Ralph Hager, now retired, as the source of this policy statement. I am tabling this press report along with the letter in which the former minister makes reference to it. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) has already acknowledged the confusion of the above suggestion regarding SIN.
I believe this haphazard from bottom to top type of decision making, particularly when it is concerned with a?. area as sensitive as the use and possible misuse of social insurance numbers, to be scandalous in the extreme. It reflects this government's total lack of interest, and ambivalence toward the question of social insurance numbers, and the government's lack of concern for the privacy of our citizens.
Adjournment Debate
The government and its agencies have claimed in defence of the use of the SIN that it has not been requested for any reason other than to promote administrative efficiency. This is a dangerous misunderstanding of the situation, in my view, because it begs the question of just how far the use of SIN as identification devices can be justified by the need for bureaucratic efficiency.
The Bank of Canada needs an identification device to identify holders of Canada Savings Bonds. Many other government departments and agencies, as well as countless private organizations, are making use of numbers or identification devices in order to carry out their responsibilities. Efficiency demands that some form of numerical device be used in many areas, but while recognizing the importance of efficiency we must not forget the basic right of every citizen to personal privacy. I am not at all convinced that the social insurance number is the only method of identification available, but I am convinced that it must not become so.
My alarm about the future use of social insurance numbers is well founded. Already we have seen the use of these numbers extend far beyond the social security application specified in the 1964 legislation. Five government departments are using the SIN as the prime identifier or registration number in their information banks. The Public Service Commission uses the social insurance number for all its files. Confidential information on every employee is theoretically at the fingertips of everyone knowing the relevant social insurance number. Moreover, this knowledge is progressively easier to obtain, given the widespread use of the number.
Use of the SIN by numerous government agencies and Crown corporations has also been documented. The Canadian Transport Commission uses it to identify domestic charter passengers; the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation uses these numbers for employee identification; they are required for access to all files of the Canadian Penitentiary Service and the National Parole Service. Provincial governments are also using the social insurance number with apparent impunity. School children are being registered under the SIN in Ontario and Saskatchewan-even newborn babies in Prince Edward Island. If this were not enough, the private use of social insurance numbers by corporations and other organizations has been expanding at an alarming rate.
All of this is being done in the name of efficiency, and in a very arbitrary fashion, I suspect. I suggest that the SIN is not the only identification device available to the governments and private organizations presently using it. In my view it is irresponsible to resort to using the number when no other method of identification has been tried.
The SIN was not intended to become a multi-purpose ID number, and it should not become one. Widespread use of it threatens the individual privacy of Canadians. Yet, judging from the evidence I have submitted, as well as that put forward by several of my hon. friends on this side, the question of personal privacy in the face of the pervasive use of social

January 23, 1979
Adjournment Debate
insurance numbers has not even been considered by this government. Efficiency seems to be its only concern. This attitude is alarming because it can be applied to any of the various departments. We have reason to speculate that whenever objections to the disclosure of one's social insurance number are raised, the government will dredge up the efficiency argument. Individual privacy will thus be reduced, chip by chip, in favour of efficiency, so-called.
Recently, on November 2 of last year, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) said the government was drawing up guidelines to prevent misuse of SIN as universal identification cards. However, he stated that there is no deadline for doing this, and he gave no undertaking that the government would stop the use of the numbers outside the social service and taxation areas for which they were originally designed.
Most federal cabinet ministers foresee greater use of social insurance numbers. The Minister of Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) has stated on several occasions that there will be more and more use of the SIN. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Buchanan) has encouraged the use of the SIN. Going back to October 25, 1972, the Toronto Globe and Mail reported that our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) indicated his personal belief that at some point in the future, compulsory-I repeat, compulsory-identity cards will be required of all Canadians.
Thus, the policy of the present government is more numerical control over the private citizen. This is absolutely contrary to the policy of a Progressive Conservative government-


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


Mr. Yves Demers (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Small Business)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Hare) does not seem to understand certain aspects of this matter. I shall try to explain them to him.
First of all, he should realize that the sales of Canada Savings Bonds does not come under the jurisdiction of the Department of Revenue. These savings bonds are sold through the Bank of Canada. The bank has records containing the names of millions of purchasers of these bonds and is now in the process of computerizing these records. Since it is necessary to use an identification number to distinguish among the various bondholders and since this number will be needed for the computerized records, the officials of my department have been informed that the bank will use the social insurance number of the purchaser if the purchaser provides it. Otherwise, it will have to program the computer so that it will produce a unique number which will be used for this purpose.

The letter mentioned by the hon. member perhaps gave the impression that the purchaser would be able to provide the identification number of his choice. Of course, this procedure cannot be used since it would be quite possible for two or more purchasers to choose the same number, which would cause bookkeeping problems.
Recently, when the hon. member asked a question of the Acting Prime Minister in the House, he seemed to be confusing the cashing of the bonds with the charging of interest on these bonds. This may explain how he could confuse the matter of choosing a unique identification number for bookkeeping purposes by the Bank of Canada and the requirement to provide a valid social insurance number when cashing in the coupons.
The interest on Canada Savings Bonds is taxable under the Income Tax Act. This law also provides that social insurance numbers should be used to identify income tax forms and records. Moreover, it stipulates that when the interest coupons on the bonds are cashed in, a social insurance number must be recorded in the report on the interest paid by the cashing agent, generally a chartered bank in that case. This bank must prepare and send to the department some particular forms called T-3 or TP-3, depending on which level of government is involved, either federal or provincial.
If the taxpayer does not provide his social insurance number, the cashing agent must, under the law, withhold 25 per cent of the interest due. This sum is credited to the taxpayer's account, and if it is not used to pay an outstanding balance in taxes, he will get a refund when he fills his income tax return form for the current year.
I admit that all this may be somewhat technical and difficult to understand, but I can assure the hon. member that the whole operation does not violate in any way the citizens' rights.
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-FRANCOPHONE SUMMIT MEETING____________


DISCUSSIONS WITH FRANCE
Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) last December 18 arose as a result of reports that France refuses to attend any meeting of Francophone nations that excludes Quebec as a participating state. Apparently France, with its customary realism, does not accept or recognize Canada as a Francophone state.
All I can say is that it is too bad that our government and our major political leaders are not as realistic. We have had more than a decade of effort on the part of the Liberal government to turn Canada into a Francophone country. The results, to my mind, are frightening, in terms of national unity at least.
*


St
January 23, 1979

Apart from the Official Languages Act, we have seen the labelling legislation and the broadcasting policy designed to spread two languages across the land, whether or not they are wanted or needed. I would suggest the metric system is also being forced on this country at great cost and dislocation to many parts of the economy, for the same reason. We have even heard of French being used in answering consular telephones in Australia.
Of course the Liberal party is not the only party striving to give Canada a French accent. We have the efforts of the Progressive Conservative party to change our ways in this very chamber to correspond to the ways of France. I refer, of course, to the practice of clapping which was introduced by the Progressive Conservatives in this chamber last fall. It is interesting to note where this practice originated, and in this connection I should like to refer to the Montreal Gazette issue of Wednesday, December 15, 1976, in which appeared the story about the new national assembly which was elected there on November 15 of that year.
Apparently the new government in the province of Quebec introduced the idea that members should clap in the chamber of the national assembly, instead of thumping their desks as had been the custom previously. The article states:
The applause itself marked another change in style introduced by the Parti Quebecois, complementing a slow conversion from British to French parliamentary tradition.
Government MNAs clapped their hands to exhibit approval instead of thumping their desk tops, a practice adopted from France's national assembly whose name was appropriated by the Quebec legislature under the Union Nationale government of Daniel Johnson.
My concern is that the efforts of the Government of Canada to turn our nation into a country which would entitle it to attend a Francophone summit or Commonwealth conference would be akin to the old saw about the great surgeon who was asked about the results of one of his heroic procedures, to which he replied that of course the operation was a great success but unfortunately the patient died.
I therefore call upon the government to cease its efforts to change the ways of our country by trying to force feed its misconceived ideas about language and culture on an unwilling population.


Louis Duclos: Mr. Speaker, the question of a Francophone summit meeting has indeed been shortly discussed during the conversations which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had in Paris with the President of the French Republic on December 8. As a matter of fact, this is an idea
Adjournment Debate
which was put forward over ten years ago by various African heads of states, including President Senghor of Senegal, an idea in which Canada and our Prime Minister have shown a great deal of interest. We feel that periodical meetings of heads of states or of leaders of fully or partly Francophone countries could foster better understanding among nations and make a real contribution in the search for solutions to international problems.
For that matter, Mr. Speaker, such an organization could in a way establish itself on the model of what was formerly known as the British Commonwealth and which has become simply the Commonwealth, which has served for many years as an international forum for the exchange of ideas among representatives of nations from the four corners of the world.
As for participation in a future Francophone summit, most countries share the position of Canada that each individual country should decide its mode of participation. Since important international issues would be raised at these meetings, Canada feels that the head of the Canadian government should take part in them.
On the other hand, France has clearly indicated that it could hardly participate in a summit from which Quebec would be excluded. France's position is not to exclude Canada, but it concerns our form of participation. On that point, it is obvious that our stands are incompatible. As for the form and content of a possible Francophone summit, it would seem essential that there be a wide consensus among the countries which might be interested before this project gets off the ground.
For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, we believe that this idea should be well thought out until the conditions that would allow for a successful Francophone summit are met. It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) took this opportunity to voice to the House his antipathy and his hostility towards the French fact, but he is at least honest enough to say clearly and out loud what unfortunately several, not all but several, of his former colleagues think to themselves.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.29 p.m.

January 23, 1979


APPENDIX
[Stage Direction]
Your Excellency,
It is a great pleasure to extend to you, as you assume the office of Governor General, an assurance of the warmest good will of the Government, Parliament and people of Canada, In their name, may I ask that your first official act be to convey to Her Majesty, the Queen of Canada, a message expressing our loyalty and affection.
[Stage Direction]
You are taking on the responsibilities of your high office at a challenging time for Canada, and a no less challenging time for its Governor General.
The scope of that challenge is the true measure of both the trust which the citizens of this country place in your hands, and of their lively confidence that you will be a wise and helpful steward of that trust.
At first glance, the prerogatives of the Sovereign and of Her representative in our parliamentary democracy seem startlingly simple: the right to be consulted, to encourage and to warn.
But on closer examination, what a wealth of potential for furthering the common good lies hidden in those simple words. What great opportunities for helping to create and define the evolving spirit of a dynamic nation can be discovered in that simple description of your office.
Canadians look to their Governor General as a person of stature, broad experience, and commitment to Canada, a person whose insight and breadth of vision can lead us all to a deeper appreciation of the values we share, the greatness of character we have inherited, and the destiny which can be ours if together we will it into reality.
Above all, we look to you to help lead us toward a keener awareness of the strength and value of our country, its people, its system of government, and its rich history of achievement. Upon that awareness can be built an even stronger Canada, with a renewed commitment to individual liberty, and shared opportunity.
{English}
You and your office are therefore a potent symbol of our unity and united purpose, and a symbol as well of the many streams of humanity which flow together into a uniquely Canadian experience.
Your commitment to public service, demonstrated as a Member of Parliament and as Premier of Manitoba, together with your thoughtful perspective on this country's problems and opportunities, eminently suit you for the role you are about to play.
Canadians have two special reasons to look to your term of office with more than the usual sense of anticipation. For the first time, the meaning of Canada will be expressed in a vice-regal voice tinged with a truly western accent.
We will hear about ourselves and our potential from the vantage point of one who identifies strongly with the open spaces and open people of the west-with their history of pioneering struggle to set down new roots in a new land. We will be hearing from a man who shares the pride of the Canadian west in its achievements, and the enthusiasm of western Canadians to tackle the problems of further development.
The second reason why we look upon your appointment as an event of historic importance is that, again for the first time, our first family will represent those millions of Canadians who trace their ancestry to countries other than Great Britain or France.
I share with countless others the well-founded hope that you will help lead all Canadians toward a deeper understanding of the richness and variety of our cultural heritage.
Personally, I look forward to my weekly meetings with you, because I know that a man who has known the joys and anguish of elective office will offer unusually well-informed advice.
On behalf of Canadians everywhere, I thank you for accepting the responsibilities which are now yours.
I wish to acknowledge as well the great debt of gratitude which we owe to Her Excellency, Mrs. Schreyer. We are all mindful of the fact that, in supporting your decision, she has herself willingly assumed an equal share of your official responsibilities, and an equal share of the resulting personal sacrifices.
To both of you, and to your children, we extend our best wishes for many happy years in Ottawa.
May all your days in your new home be filled with joy and peace. May duty be a pleasure. May God grant you satisfaction and fulfilment in the service of Canada.

[Stage Direction]
Prime Minister,
I shall be honoured to carry to our Gracious Sovereign Queen Elizabeth II the tidings of loyalty and affection which you have entrusted to me on behalf of the Canadian people. In accepting this task, I convey to you my determination to carry out those responsibilities which she has entrusted to me on Her behalf.
My wife, Lily, and I are grateful for the welcome and for the kind words you have expressed to us. We shall always cherish them.
[Stage Direction]
I realize I am accepting a responsibility and honour that has been accorded to only four other Canadians. I am following in distinguished steps, and not only theirs. My lifetime has spanned the decades from Lord Tweedsmuir to the Right Honourable Jules Leger. Those who served Her Majesty as Governor General in those years brought great and varied distinction to the office. I pray I am equal to this task, to this office and to this time.
All previous Governors General of Canada have symbolized for Canadians that stability and continuity of national life and institutions so necessary to any cohesive civilization. This need is all the greater in a society whose very essence is the diversity of its culture and the vastness of its geography, in the society that is our Canada. The task is clear: the task is real.
[Stage Direction]
As I undertake it, I have already received thousands of messages of good will and support. My wife and I are encouraged by them. In the coming days and weeks we shall seek continued support from all who care about Canada-and they are legion, whether Canada for them is the land of their ancestors or the land of their choice. All these Canadians, this blessedly overwhelming majority in every province of Canada, will provide, with the help of providence, a yearning for the preservation of one Canada that will not be frustrated, a wisdom that will not be denied. Canada remains our transcending objective. The reasons, both in our spiritual and in our material well-being, are self-evident.
[ Translation]
It is with profound sadness that I note a minority view that does not acknowledge that in an enlightened federal Canada there is scope for the fullest expression of cultural and linguistic heritage. The preservation of our country's economic capacities and its weight in the councils of the world surely need not be sacrificed in order to achieve a greater measure of freedom. The freedoms we now share and cherish are equal to the best of countries on this planet. They are surpassed by none. They can be greater still. It is not necessary to break the bonds of our common history to do so.
For, whatever our origins, wherever we live in Canada, we have all contributed to the building of this country. Each Canadian, though unable truly to realize the greatness of the collective achievement that is unfolding, is playing his part. I would recall the eloquence of my predecessor, the Right Honourable Jules Leger, in this regard:
This might be said of generations of honest and unassuming people of Quebec, who have always been faithful to their homeland, having no other and seeking no other. Men of the land, men of the sea, of the church and of business, I pay them warm tribute for without their courage and tenacity the Canada we know today would not exist. They lived their lives along the shores of the mighty river that bore their ancestors and shaped their destiny.
The faith of our history is borne in these, the words of a man of wisdom and patriotism and exemplary courage, who well understands the importance of French-speaking Canadians to our broadening mosaic. I can only concur with these words. They capture the pride we share in our diverse origins and the recognition we share that in those origins lies the source of our striving toward the larger horizons of spiritual tolerance and material progress that come with a larger unity.
[Stage Direction]
To this, I must add the bringing to this new land, first to the Atlantic and then the central provinces, much more than a century ago, of British parliamentary institutions and English common law and jurisprudence. The stability and magnanimity of the English-speaking peoples who came to these shores is another great stream of our history.
But in the confluence of these two great streams that have shaped our Canadian character must surely be seen the force of two additional tributaries adding to the majestic flow of our culture and civilization. One is, of course, our brothers and sisters, Inuit and Indian. They constitute a group of Canadians who are caught between their traditional ways and contemporary opportunities. Whichever course they choose will bring grave difficulties for those involved, for those working with them.
The other stream is that multiplicity of groups that chose Canada or whose ancestors chose Canada. I know their contribution to Canada. The ethnic mosaic has made for a more colourful and interesting Canadian way of life. Those who make up this mosaic share the goal of retaining the clarity of that mosaic, for in the clarity of their cultural distinctiveness lies its beauty.
There is also shared experience-the shared experience of adversity. Whether we think of the earliest habitants, or the coureurs des bois; of the United Empire Loyalists of Upper Canada or the Maritimes; whether we think of the Scottish fur traders of the northwest, or that incredibly small pocket of English and French-speaking settlers known as the Red River Colony at the Fort Garry and the St. Boniface Missions; whether it be the Icelandic-speaking settlers after 1870 or German-speaking Mennonites and Hutterites at the same
time-one the victim of nature, the other of human persecution; whether it be central European immigrants pulling their belongings across the untilled Prairies by sheer physical exertion or the frustration of the Indian and Metis fearing the loss of hunting grounds, and the coming of malnutrition, pestilence and disease, in all this history one word stands out-adversity. Our problems of today are as nothing. To succumb to pessimism, to allow fragmentation, to accept the shattering of the Canadian mosaic is to break faith with all who endured so much to build so well what we have today.
What we have today can be secured if we remind ourselves of some self-evident truths spoken by a Canadian of venerable years but still active among us. He said, the truth is that Confederation was conceived of by men of two different but equally rich communities. Bilingualism and multiculturalism are facts of Canadian life, they cannot be avoided nor should they, for they are assets, not liabilities; positive factors, not negative ones.
But there is also a need to speak for all of Canada. It is what we share that allows us the richness of our diversity and we need to remind ourselves of this whenever we become preoccupied with our differences. As we shape present policies we preserve the necessary options for future generations of all Canadians.
What I believe many people earnestly hope for is not merely the toleration of our differences, but the realization that to be a good Canadian each of us must be true to his or her heritage. This noble sentiment was eloquently expressed by Sir Wilfrid Laurier when he said:
Three years ago when in England, I visited one of those models of Gothic architecture, which the hand of genius, guided by an unerring faith, had moulded into an harmonious whole. This cathedral was made of granite, oak and marble. It is the image of the nation I wish to see Canada become. For here, I want the granite to remain the granite, the oak to remain the oak, the marble to remain the marble. Out of these elements I would build a nation great among the nations of the world.
[Editor's Note: The Governor General repeated the previous paragraph in German and Ukrainian as follows:
Dieser Dorn besteht aus Granit, Eiche und Marmor. In derselben Weise sehe ich auch Kanada. Denn hier soil der Granit Granit bleiben, Eiche bleibt Eiche und Marmor bleibt Marmor. Aus diesen Elementen schaffe ich eine Nation, die gross ist unter den Nationen der Erde.
lie bIaChtok xott Hauii!, hkob h xotIb Ch mo<5 KaHaAa CTEJia. H xovy, mo<5 TyT rpaHiT 3axnmaBca rpaHiTou, Ay<5 AyOou, wapvtyp MapuypoM. 3 uhx e-ieMeHTiB a 6u 36yayB&B OAHy i3 uoryTHix Hauifi cBiTy#]
[ Translation]
What Sir Wilfrid Laurier clearly believed, what he shared with others, with Sir John A. Macdonald, with Brown, with Blake, with Sir George-fitienne Cartier, what they share with my predecessors and with me, is that a diverse society in a vast land can experience a broadening of the mind and spirit-a magnanimity of the soul. Their idealistic dream has become almost the full reality. We need but work together to avoid slipping backward toward the fragmentation of intolerance.
[Stage Direction]
Today I say with the deepest conviction that we can do this. Within 50 years, a moment in the sweep of history, our Canada has gone from aloofness to tolerance, and beyond tolerance to respect for, indeed a deep desire for, the retention of the differentiations of our heritage and culture.
[Stage Direction]
But the need for this vigilance, for this effort, is incumbent upon us all and particularly on whoever holds this office.
[Stage Direction]
It is said that Sir Wilfrid Laurier testified to Lord Grey's work as Governor General, that he gave his whole heart and his whole soul to Canada. If those words could ever in truth be applied to me, as a third generation Canadian from the wheatfields of the west, by my contemporary Prime Minister-only then could I feel that I have kept faith with all who love our country. One Canada, whole, undivided, the benefits of our pluralism intact.
[Editor's Note: The Governor General said the following in Polish:
Oby pamiec naszej pracy i naszego kraju byla blogoslo-wiona na wieki. Niech zyje kanadyjski kraj i narod na wieki wiekow!]
[Stage Direction]
May the memory of our work and of our country be blessed forever.
[Stage Direction]
From sea even unto sea.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, January 24, 1979