1978-06-29

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that over 6,000 employees of Statistics Canada below the directors level yesterday received forms and were asked to sign them before July 14, in view of the fact that at least some employees of Statistics Canada are refusing to sign a blanket agreement with the rules imposed upon them by the booklet, especially the rules which forbid them to criticize in any way the federal government, and in view of the outrage that such a sensitive and regressive policy by Statistics Canada is causing, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce withdraw immediately the booklet from circulation as well as the form which forces the employees of Statistics Canada to sign it.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PARTICIPATION BY PUBLIC IN FORMING NATIONAL POLICY-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the conclusion reached by a study of the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development that the Canadian public has been barred from having any real influence on national energy policies, particularly in nuclear matters, and that the federal government has resisted initiating any nationwide nuclear information program, in view of the fact that the report indicts
Canada's parliament for being exceptionally inactive in the nuclear debate and the government in energy and other fields for allowing bureaucrats to take over power from the cabinet, and particularly in light of the admission of Dr. A. T. Prince, president of the Atomic Energy Control Board that there is a cult of manipulation of government officialdom, that they are undemocratic and want their own oligarchy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence):
That this House direct the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works to immediately convene and to hold sittings during the parliamentary recess with a view to preparing a report to parliament on recommendations to increase participation by and consultation with the Canadian public on national energy policies and to otherwise alleviate the aforementioned deficiencies.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to the introduction of such a motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to present a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that 1,900 federal nurses, many of whom provide exclusive medical care to people in remote communities across the country and to the government departments of National Health and Welfare, Veterans Affairs, National Defence and the Canadian Penitentiary Service, are members of the Professional Institute of the Public Service and have been without a contract since December 28, 1976, and in view of the fact that action must be taken immediately in order to avert a national strike by the nursing group, who will be in a legal position to strike on July 4, 1978, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That Treasury Board accept the majority report of the conciliation board, chaired by Mr. T. C. O'Connor, and take appropriate action to reach an immediate agreement with the nursing group.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HUMAN RIGHTS
[Stage Direction]
June 29, 1978

Hon. Martin O'Connell (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. Recognizing that members of five Helsinki monitoring groups in the Soviet Union have placed their own freedom at risk, have been harassed, imprisoned and exiled in seeking compliance by the Soviet Union with the human rights obligations which it freely undertook under the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, to which Canada is a signatory, and in the conviction that the observance of human rights under international agreements and the freer movement of people and ideas contribute directly to international security and peace, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche), the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) and the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That this House join with parliamentarians in the United Kingdom, Norway and Belgium in nominating the Helsinki monitoring groups in the U.S.S.R. for the 1978 Nobel Peace Prize.


Mr. Speaker:: In accordance with Standing Order 43, such a motion can be introduced for consideration only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to seek unanimous consent to move a motion, the urgent and pressing circumstances of which appear in the motion. If leave is given, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Big-gar (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That in light of the experience of Bernard Maguire who sought, under part 4 of the human rights bill, to examine his personal files but was threatened with prosecution under the Official Secrets Act if he used facts from government files to clear his name from allegations which led to his dismissal from employment with CN Telecommunications, a fact which makes a farce of the proposals to imbed a bill of rights within the constitution, this House orders the Minister of Supply and Services to alter the security practices of his department and change the regulations to permit Maguire to make use of the facts which are available in government files in order to clear his name.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ANTI-DUMPING TRIBUNAL INVESTIGATION INTO LAY-OFFS CAUSED BY DUMPING-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, namely, the announced lay-off yesterday in Oshawa of between 150 and 175 employees of Fittings, Limited. These employees are being laid off as the result of a shutdown in the production of certain plumbing fittings which are being imported in unprecedented numbers from abroad. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House instructs the Minister of Finance to take steps which will cause the Anti-dumping Tribunal to investigate the possibility of dumping in this sector of the Canadian market and, secondly, instructs the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to move immediately to see what might be done to halt this lay-off.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the government of Newfoundland, on August 19, 1977, requested the Government of Canada to support a request to Her Majesty the Queen for approval of the use of the prefix "Royal" by the Newfoundland Constabulary, established at St. John's in 1871 and patterned upon the Royal Irish Constabulary, and in view of the fact that the Government of Canada has failed to act with dispatch or to support the request and now advises that such a request cannot succeed since the Newfoundland Constabulary is, firstly, not a national association and, secondly, that there is an objection from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to the use of the prefix "Royal" by another police force, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the government acquire some backbone and reject objections from the RCMP to the use of the prefix "Royal" by the Newfoundland Constabulary, that the government transmit the request of the government of Newfoundland to Her Majesty the Queen with the endorsement of the government immediately so that the matter can be decided in time for the visit of Her Majesty the Queen to Newfoundland commencing July 26, and that the government cease its contemptible treatment of our historic connection with the royal family and Her Majesty the Queen as head of state, revealed both in their lack of action and pusillanimous conduct with respect to the request of the government of Newfoundland and in constitutional proposals recently presented to the House of
June 29, 1978

Commons which propose further reducing the association of the royal family with Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the presentation of such a motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, involving the National Capital Commission. In view of the many buildings demolished and families displaced as a result of the massive development in Hull involving projects such as Place du Portage, les Terrasses de la Chaudiere and auxiliary structures, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle):
That the Minister of State for Urban Affairs instruct the National Capital Commission to be extremely careful in adhering to existing leases and in no way inconvenience nor adversely affect any parties in the area for the sake of advancing the interests of commercial developers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of grave importance under Standing Order 43. In view of the current and topical concern regarding conflict of interest guidelines and the government's apparent deathbed conversion occasioned by pressure of the opposition and public opinion to introduce further proposals regarding this very important matter, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling):
That the circumstances surrounding the part played by Donald Macdonald, former minister of finance and minister of defence and a recent addition to the board of directors of Douglas Aircraft in obtaining favourable consideration for that corporation with respect to Industry, Trade and Commerce file No. 53/513C-120-1, involving more than $16 million, be examined by an appropriate committee of the House of Commons, particularly since the context of the file indicates that he participated in preliminary negotiations while he was a member of this House.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DELEGATION FROM FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
Mr. Speaker:: Before commencing the oral question period, I know all hon. members will want to join with me in calling attention to the presence in our gallery of a delegation from the Committee for Research and Technology of the Bundestag, Federal Republic of Germany, headed by Dr. Albert Probst.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. We understand the government's policy is for freer trade in the GATT negotiations. We have been asking for some time what provision would be made to assist industries which may lose their viability as a result of the lowering of tariff barriers. I am sure the Deputy Prime Minister is familiar with the report of the Economic Council of Canada, "For a Common Future", just released in which it is pointed out that leather goods, textiles, knitting mills, clothing, electrical and sports goods industries in Quebec and Ontario may be very badly affected by competition from the developing countries as a result of the lowering of tariff barriers in the course of the GATT negotiations, losing perhaps 250,000 jobs.
Has the hon. gentleman, together with his colleagues, considered the recommendation of the Economic Council of Canada that the federal government should agree with the provinces concerned to establish an industrial adjustment and redeployment fund and create a comprehensive joint redevelopment strategy, supported by funds amounting to a total of some $4 billion over a period of 15 years to help workers forced out of those industries to redeploy their resources?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: The Government of Canada, like other governments at Geneva, is looking toward a liberalization of trade, but it is not the intention of Canada to open its markets to other countries in the name of free trade unless

June 29, 1978
Oral Questions
there are reciprocal advantages for Canadian exporters in other markets which are made available to us.
In connection with adjustment assistance, while I have not had an opportunity to examine the recommendations of the Economic Council, it is the intention of the government to provide such assistance programs where necessary in co-operation with the provinces. I can assure the hon. member that this is the policy of the government and I believe some consideration has already been given to the prospect of establishing an adjustment fund. Of course, we understand that whatever agreements are reached, they will not become effective immediately but that a period as long as eight years will be involved in certain cases.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Unaccustomed as I am to public approval, Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Deputy Prime Minister. The hon. gentleman is aware that textiles, knitting mills and the leather industry are among the industries most threatened, even before any tariff reductions have been made. Could the minister be more specific in telling us what plans the government has in mind, particularly since, as the report points out, eastern Ontario and the province of Quebec are most threatened by any reduction in tariff barriers or even the continuance of the present quota system and it is the government's policy to support the developing countries?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I understood the applause was because of my answer. However, I give full credit to the hon. member's interpretation of that applause.


An hon. Member:: You are both wrong.


John Carnell Crosbie: It may be my gadget is not working: I did not hear an answer. The Deputy Prime Minister will be bent more broadly than Mr. Broadbent when the election comes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: A report will appear in the Financial Post tomorrow that Canada's negotiator, Jake Warren, told the Japanese and European Community negotiators last week in Washington that they should improve their bids or risk a Canadian walkout. He said he was fed-up with their scornful tactics and meagre tariff offers, and that we need wider access for some of our major export products to their markets, including fish, non-ferrous minerals, and so on. Is it correct that Canada has informed the European Community and Japan that they must improve their bids or risk a Canadian walkout?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we have not at any time stated that we would walk out of the negotiations and I am quite certain that Mr. Warren has made no such threat. We have said, of course, that we are disappointed with certain offers, particularly the Japanese offer, and as well with certain aspects of the offer made to Canada by the European Commu-

nity, especially with respect to fisheries and agricultural products. Obviously, if these offers are not improved, it will not be possible for Canada to offer as much in the way of reciprocal benefits to other countries. Presumably, what Canada will have to decide at a certain point, if these offers from other countries are not improved, is whether we can leave on the table the offers we have already made.
With respect to the previous question dealing with textiles, it is clear from the discussions up to the present time that there will not be very deep cuts in the field of textiles because quite a number of countries, including Canada, understand the weakness of the textile sector at the present time.


REQUEST FOR TABL ING OF TASK FORCE REPORT ON TEXTILES AND CLOTHING
William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, according to the report of the consultative task force on textiles and clothing to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, which report I have in my hand, the 14 countries not covered by the seven bilateral restraint agreements with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce still constitute, and I quote, "a moving threat to Canadian jobs".
Will the minister who is responsible for our GATT negotiations table this report, as well as the other 21 sector reports, before the House rises so that members may examine and discuss them; and does the minister, as recommended by these reports, plan to seek bilateral agreements with the 14 nations as recommended by the task force report and by the Textiles and Clothing Board ?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the reports to which the hon. member refers: I did not hear clearly his description of them. But I should say, with respect to the negotiations which are taking place at Geneva, that it is not the intention to conclude bilateral agreements. Presumably, there will be a general agreement to which all signatories will adhere.


William Heward Grafftey: It is not good enough for the Deputy Prime Minister to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a supplementary question, would he please put it forthwith.


William Heward Grafftey: My supplementary question involves 150,000 jobs in the province of Quebec alone. Since this report clearly warns the government that thousands of jobs are going to be lost, and since the government has announced no industrial strategy whatsoever-the Deputy Prime Minister says he has not read this report which warns the government-will ministers of the Crown be visiting the province of Quebec this summer to explain government policy to workers who will lose their jobs in towns throughout the province and to explain what alternative employment the government has for them?
June 29, 1978


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I presume the hon. member is relating his question to the current negotiations which are taking place at Geneva. 1 think it is a mistake, unnecessary, unwise and, in a certain sense, tragic for hon. members to suggest that hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs will be lost as a result of these negotiations. It has been made clear already that the government-as are other governments-is sensitive to the problem of the textile industry in Canada as well as the footwear industry. Deep cuts in these particular commodities are not likely to take place, and any industry in Canada which might be affected because of tariff changes will have a very long period in which to adjust and will likely receive adjustment assistance from the Government of Canada as well as from provincial governments where necessary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PUBLIC SERVICE
Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Is he aware of the negotiating problems between the government and the 1,900 federal nurses who are members of the Professional Institute of the Public Service, and is he also aware of the fact that the nursing group will be in a legal position to strike on July 4, 1978, following a long and futile series of negotiations which have left the nurses without a contract since December 28, 1976? If so, can he say what action he is prepared to take in order to achieve a settlement with these nurses?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I am very much aware of that situation. There have been recent discussions. I do not think contract negotiations can be effectively conducted in the House of Commons, but I am prepared to inform the House that discussions are taking place.
I would also like to make it quite clear that in terms of monetary settlements, quite some time ago the government put on the table the maximum permissible increase for the nurses' group under the anti-inflation guidelines. Of course, there is that inhibition about further concessions in monetary terms. The other issues are most complex, involving a very detailed submission of recommendations and demands from the nurses' group which is very similar to those of another group involving the home economics people who have reached a settlement, in spite of the complexities being similar in both cases.


Walter (Wally) Firth: I have a question for the same minister and I would like to ask him if he is aware of the severe consequences that strike action would have in the communities, especially in the Northwest Territories, where these people have a very heavy responsibility and have to do work which is equivalent to work done by surgeons and other doctors. Is he prepared to
Oral Questions
accept the majority report of the conciliation board and give parity in pay rates with their counterparts in the provinces?


Robert Knight Andras: Of course, I am aware of the consequences of a work stoppage on the part of the nurses, and indeed I think the responsibility for a settlement rests on both sides, and we will meet ours.


Mr. G6rard Laprise (Abitibi):: On the same topic, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the President of the Treasury Board whether he is aware of the fact that in northern Quebec as well as in the northern parts of the other provinces and in the Northwest Territories there are several communities where there are no physicians and where the nursing staff who must do work which is equivalent to work done by physicians are being paid a $100 bonus every month. On the other hand, this nursing staff is required to do between 60 and 80 hours of overtime each month, which is entirely ridiculous for the sort of work it is doing. Therefore, I should like to ask the President of the Treasury Board whether, during the current round of bargaining which must be completed by July 4, and before any strike occurs, he would be prepared to recommend that the work the nursing staff is doing in these communities be recognized and paid for accordingly.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, of course, we want to pay the nurses as we do all other employees in consequence of the duties and responsibilities they have and in comparison with the salaries, wages, benefits and compensations existing in other jurisdictions. We believe we are doing that. I repeat that the monetary offer on the table is the maximum permissible under the anti-inflation guidelines to which both they and we are subject.


Gérard Laprise: I should like to put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Since the suggestion which I have just made to the President of the Treasury Board is now applicable to the RCMP, I would like to know why it could not be applied to other health professionals working in remote areas in Canada?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will note the hon. member's comments as a representation and give them full consideration, although I think I have indicated some of the parameters within which we must operate in terms of the anti-inflation guidelines.

June 29, 1978
Oral Questions


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. It stems from statements made by the Minister of Finance during his speech to the Conference Board. I think the Minister of Finance is attempting to embarrass the Minister of Labour. The report in last night's Journal and the night before reads as follows:
He told the Conference Board in Canada that there are "disturbing signs" that labour groups in the public and private sectors plan to demand big wage rises after pay and price controls end this year.
Does the Minister of Labour share that view of the Minister of Finance? I see he is trying to get his instructions right now.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Given the fact that the Minister of Finance is trying to destroy the Minister of Labour, may I hear from the Minister of Labour in this regard?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the hon. Minister of Finance, and myself are just having a chat about that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: We have all the time in the world. Does the Minister of Labour agree with the comments of his friend, who indicated that there are some very disturbing signs that labour groups in the public and private sectors plan to demand big wage raises after pay and price controls end this year? I thought the Minister of Labour was on the job. If he has finished his consultation, would he kindly answer my question?


John Carr Munro: I think the Minister of Finance was looking at a few contracts which might be a little too high which he perceived were coming down.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of Finance, who is attempting to shaft the Minister of Labour.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Would he kindly tell me what disturbing signs have him so exercised? Would he give the House an indication of what he is talking about?


John Carr Munro: Are you talking to me?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am talking to the Minister of Finance. Would you guys get your act together?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should realize that there is very close consul-

tation all the time between the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Finance. The answer given by the Minister of Labour was exactly the right one. Some contracts which have been negotiated at this time look a bit loaded in the second year. It could create some problems if there are people seeking increases which are too big.
We have decided to get out of controls. The Minister of Labour and I have had discussions with the labour unions. They are planning to be reasonable, generally speaking, but there are a few cases which are worrisome. In raising the problem, I just want to warn every Canadian that everyone should be reasonable so that we can help the Canadian economy by keeping inflation as low as possible.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The Minister of Labour does not agree.


STATISTICS CANADA
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I should like to direct my question to the President of the Treasury Board. Yesterday, Statistics Canada issued a booklet to its 6,000 employees, entitled "Policies and Procedures on Conflict of Interest and Standard of Conduct". Contained in the booklet is a form which must be signed. That form makes the employees of Statistics Canada give the following undertaking:
Acts in such a way that tends to undermine confidence in the bureau or any of its employees, or that impairs relations with other federal departments of governments in Canada or that criticizes the government.
Clearly, this is in violation of the Canadian Bill of Rights. Is the President of the Treasury Board aware that such a guideline has been sent out and has been made a condition of employment by Statistics Canada? In view of the fact that clearly it violates the Canadian Bill of Rights, will he order that it be withdrawn immediately?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I have not looked at it in detail. I will do so. If the hon. member's contention is correct, something should be done about it.


James Aloysius McGrath: Will the President of the Treasury Board assure the House that this circular will be stopped forthwith and will not be circulated to any other public servants in Canada? The regulations issued by the Department of National Revenue enjoined charitable organizations of this country not to become involved in political activities in order to enjoy their tax exempt status, which clearly is a violation of their human rights. Will he stop this form being circulated any further in the public service?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I do not think 1 will add to my previous answer. I will take a look at it.
June 29, 1978


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs responsible for the National Capital Commission. Considering the violent storm which can be expected as a result of jurisdictional difficulties between Quebec and Ontario and which will directly inflict on workers in the national capital region some significant economic restraints, deep frustrations and serious injustices, could the minister tell the House whether he intends to take adequate measures with his cabinet colleagues, such as for example the creation of a special economic district to prevent that region from being split in two by a wall of shame as in Berlin?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that some statements and actions of the Quebec government could set up borders which should not exist in a country such as ours and there is no doubt that we must closely control its machinations and remind the government that it has been elected to provide good government for Quebeckers and not to promote Quebec independence.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Now that the minister's department has launched a full-scale inquiry into the DC-9 crash on runway 23 at Malton airport on Monday, would he investigate a similar incident which took place in Winnipeg on Monday, June 19, when an Air Canada DC-9, flight 178, experienced mechanical failure and dropped ten feet to the runway but fortunately there was enough runway to allow the aircraft to come to a safe stop?
Also, would he comment on the statement of his officials that the ravine at Malton airport is an obvious hazard and provides less than ideal conditions for take-off and landing? Is the minister aware of this statement by one of his officials? Will the runway be closed until the inquiry is completed?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my officials already have in hand the incident to which the hon. member referred. Certainly, I will look at the matter specifically. As to the comment with regard to the ravine, I should assure the hon. member that my officials have been very aware of the ravine for many years and find the runway to be safe and usable. It will continue in use.
Oral Questions URBAN AFFAIRS


NCC ADHERENCE TO EXISTING LEASES
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the good-natured minister of urban affairs. The minister has received a copy of the Campeau letter of February 20, 1978, to Mr. Juneau which reads in part:
I can understand your problems, especially the matter of the lease for the diplomat, but I believe you could go into litigation.
It went on to indicate that Mr. Campeau did not want to be implicated in that situation. In view of this, can the minister indicate if all leases and commitments of the National Capital Commission have been honoured? Has any pressure, such as interruption of power services or issuing of eviction notices, occurred, particularly in view of the hiring of an outside solicitor over the heads of Department of Justice officials?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I said previously: the National Capital Commission has the right to seek the services of consultants when it deems it advisable. No lawyers were hired over the head of the Minister of Justice, as the hon. member claims. On the other hand, there is no direct relation between the development of a park near the Brewery Creek and the development of Mr. Campeau's hotel as the hon. member also claims. It seems obvious to me that the hon. member, as always, is trying to discover scandals where none exist and allows himself, as he has done in the past, to continue to sling mud in the face of French Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: In view of that remark, some people might consider calling the minister a political thug. I would not go that far-reserving that right, however. Will he tell the House whether he has seen the confidential report given to Mr. Gallant suggesting that instead of the S54 million buy-back provision which was proposed and ultimately given to Campeau, the government should have insisted on a buy-back provision valued at $1?

[ Translation]


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. The Canada Labour Relations Board has just ordered a vote between scabs and strikers to decide which union will represent the employees of radio station CJMS in Montreal. In view of this dangerous precedent, which I consider unfair, does the Minister of

June 29, 1978
Oral Questions
Labour intend to intervene with the board and try to obtain recognition of the union that already existed?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is aware that there is no provision for a minister to intervene in the deliberations of an administrative tribunal. It is for that very reason we have the Canada Labour Relations Board adjudicating this matter without political interference of any kind. The board has made this particular ruling, but that does not mean the union which is now in existence representing the employees will necessarily be prejudiced before the evidence is completed.
[ Translation]


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, as the minister refuses to intervene, perhaps rightly so, will he tell the House whether he is willing to give his support and every possible assistance to the union which is complaining about that injustice, and even perhaps to lead it to a higher court? What does the minister intend to do in the face of such glaring unfairness?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I may have misunderstood the hon. member. As I say, there is no question of my refusing to do so. It is more a question of my not being able to do so under the legislation governing procedures of the Canada Labour Relations Board.
As far as the other question is concerned, it is my belief that the Canada Labour Relations Board is also seized with the issue of whether to implement a first contract in this particular dispute. These are the two issues before the Canada Labour Relations Board at the present time. I think it would not make any sense at all for me to say anything further until we find out the ultimate decisions of the board.


FISHERIES
Miss Coline Campbell (South Western Nova):: 
QUOTAS ON SWORDFISH CATCH
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: 
PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the President of the Treasury Board in respect of a report entitled "Equal Opportunities for Women in the Public Service of Canada", given to us a few days ago by his secretariat?
In view of the fact that this report suggests that the fact that only 3 per cent of the positions at senior levels in the public service are held by women seems to be responsible for the decline of female participation in the career assignment programs, what steps does the President of the Treasury Board intend to take to make it advantageous to women to participate in these programs, by making it known to them that there will be more opportunities for them at the upper levels?


An hon. Member:: We are going to phone the minister's wife about this.


Robert Knight Andras: That would be a good idea.


An hon. Member:: We might get a better answer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: And more accurate.
June 29, 1978


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think it is time we adjourned. I agree wih the hon. member's comments. We are reviewing with each departmental officer responsible in every department plans for more affirmative and aggressive action in future years. These plans will be available, I presume, at the beginning of the fall session and I will be able to give hon. members more detail about what is anticipated. Progress has been slow, but steady, and we wish to accelerate it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, 1 am glad the President of the Treasury Board agrees not only with me but also with the recommendations in the report prepared in his department. May I also ask what he intends to do about the indication in the report that in departments where there was no co-ordinator for a period of months, the effect of the equal opportunities program was, almost without exception, devastating? What steps is the minister going to take to see that there is activity in the department which will make it clear to female public servants that there is hope for them to advance to positions at the higher levels?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, having a co-ordinator within departments is a very high priority subject matter of the discussions with the departments regarding their plans for more aggressive and affirmative action in the future.


THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Hon. James Richardson (Winnipeg South):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Armstrong Richardson: I would first of all like to thank hon. members for the manner in which they have welcomed me to this side of the House. I think this is evidence that our parliamentary institutions allow us to have fundamental disagreements and still resolve them in a civilized way.
My question was for the Prime Minister, but in his absence I will direct it to the Deputy Prime Minister. As the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution cannot reasonably be expected to make recommendations about what should be in the revised constitution without knowing the procedure by which the new constitution would subsequently be amended, will the Deputy Prime Minister assure the House that the government will not recommend to or negotiate with the provinces any amending procedure which gives any single province of Canada a veto over amendments to the constitution of Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I believe it will be possible for the special joint committee to examine the constitutional proposals already made by the government, and I believe it is the intention of the government to raise with the
Oral Questions
provinces the question of an amending formula later this summer.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I did not expect that the Deputy Prime Minister would be able to respond to the question as to whether there will be a single province veto over amendments to the constitution of Canada. I would ask him whether the government will give consideration to changing the proposed timetable, in view of the importance of the relationship between the amending procedure and all that is in the constitution, in order to bring the important consideration of the amending procedure forward from phase two into phase one so that it will be considered concurrently with other important matters in phase one.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will realize that the matters involved in phase one are those which are within the competence of the Parliament of Canada. They do have a bearing on, and are of interest to, the provinces. Of course, it is the intention of the government to consult with the provinces and a first ministers' conference is planned for the fall.
At the present time, certainly there is not the essential link between phase one and the amending formula that obviously will be very much involved in phase two. As I said, it is the intention of the government, this summer, to circulate to the provinces a review of the whole question of the amending formula. It will be possible to seek the views of the provinces. But phase one is not necessarily linked to completion of phase two.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister in his capacity as government House leader. I understand there have been discussions in various parts of the House with a view to amending the Canada Elections Act. If those discussions continue, is it intended to amend the Canada Elections Act by perhaps expediting the recess of this House and resolving some of the difficulties in which candidates find themselves because of the uncertain state of the election timetable?
Would the government House leader check with the Chief Electoral Officer about the way in which service personnel could be included in the preliminary lists which are the basis upon which spending limits are computed under the new Canada Elections Act?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we hope to give first reading to a bill standing in my name with respect to the Canada Elections Act which deals with two matters that have been the subject of all-party

June 29, 1978
Oral Questions
discussion. I would hope we could deal with that. But the matter mentioned by the hon. member is a new item. I doubt whether it would be possible to include this in any bill that has any hope of passing before the end of the sitting tomorrow. I would raise the matter with the Chief Electoral Officer, but I doubt if we could conclude discussions with such celerity that we could amend the bill before the end of the sitting tomorrow.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that any amendment to the Canada Elections Act cannot pass unless there is consent of all members of the House for all stages of the bill-and I think the government House leader did give some type of undertaking-surely he could consult with the Chief Electoral Officer to find out what kind of technical difficulties there may be to amending that part of the present law so that service personnel, who have always been discriminated against because of their peculiar status under the elections law, could be considered in the computation of the financing formulas.
At the present time they are omitted, even though candidates with a large service population will incur unreasonable and undue expense because of the difficulty of contacting service personnel. I think this omission could be remedied with a very simple definition. As long as there is some assurance that there will be an attempt to do that, it might help expedite the bill as far as I am concerned.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am in sympathy with the object of the hon. member's question and would attempt to co-operate. I will explore the possibilities, but I doubt whether it would be possible to get the kind of agreement that is necessary and to work out the amendments within the short timeframe facing us if we, as I wish to, adjourn the House tomorrow. We will make an attempt, but the hon. member ought to realize it takes a lot of time to work out the compromises involved in changes to the Canada Elections Act.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: 
CORPORATIONS
Mr. Dennis Dawson (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Could the minister inform the House whether the officials of his department considered the possibility of taking legal action against the National Hockey League under the Combines Investigation Act since the league seems to be excluding Quebec City, Edmonton and Winnipeg?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Following discussions yesterday with my colleague, the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport), I called the director of investigation under the Combines Investigation Act about a review of the situation relating to the proposed NHL-WHA merger and possible NHL expansion and asked him to advise whether any activity in this area is subject to the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act. I have not yet received a report from him. As the hon. member knows, the proposed merger which was being discussed yesterday in Detroit has fallen through and meetings have ended for the present.


FINANCE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I would direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Regarding the proposed $75 million subsidy to the Ford Motor Company, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce stated yesterday, according to a press report from Toronto, that if Canada wants a plant "we are going to have to go along with the incentive."
Can the Minister of Finance tell the House whether that statement reflects government policy? If so, would he explain why the government is allowing itself to be manipulated by a company whose operations, according to a government study, are twice as profitable in Canada as they are in the United States-a corporation which has conceded that in the particular proposal it is thinking of, it would be more profitable by $2.1 million per year to operate in Canada than in the United States?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, 1 think when the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce mentioned that, he was stating government policy that in the case of the establishment of an engine plant by Ford in Ontario, the federal government was willing, with the Ontario government-if the Ontario government wants to join-to
June 29, 1978

offer an incentive for the company to establish in Ontario at this time.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, that is deeply disturbing news to all Canadians who will be involved in the millions of dollars in giveaways to corporations which are amongst the most profitable in the world. The minister's seatmate, the Minister of Labour, recently made the following statement:
-if Canada is to retain its fair and equitable share of the productive capacity of the automobile industry and protect jobs, we need to get at least $6 billion of the new investment.
Is the minister aware that if we continue the same proportion of government giveaways that he is prepared to give in the Ford case to get this $6 billion, it will cost Canadian taxpayers an additional $1 billion? This, presumably, is to get the kind of investment that the Minister of Labour has said we ought to be getting under the terms of the U.S.-Canada auto pact without any subsidies at all.
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we are involved in both files at the present time, the GM file for Quebec and the Ford file for Ontario, and we have to compete with the United States which offer to those industries subsidies and services which are extremely expensive; as we want to keep an acceptable ratio of employment in the automotive industry for Canadian workers, we thought it necessary in both cases to make offers to those companies.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Since cabinet has had another week to consider the urgent decision needed for the next phase of the new fighter program, can the minister tell the House if the government has decided on a short list? If not, will the minister assure the House that the cabinet will not endanger the delicate timing of this program by postponing this vital step any longer?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. gentleman that the decision has been made not to go to a short list at this time. The various vendors have been making unsolicited proposals. We felt, in fairness to all vendors, that they should have an equal opportunity to do that. They will be given until August 1 for any supplementary proposals they might wish to make. This does not affect the time schedule. In September, as was originally planned, the cabinet will either go to a short list or it will make a final decision. The most likely outcome will be a short list at that time.
Privilege-Mr. Mac Kay


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, could the minister tell the House if it is true that at present the senior officials responsible for advising the cabinet on the final choice for the new fighter are unable to begin the next phase, that of detailed consideration and negotiations, because they are not permitted to consider any of the attractive offers or the "sweeteners" received after February 1 until the cabinet makes up its mind on this matter?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, this is precisely the reason for allowing each of the contractors intending to make further proposals to make them before August 1, so that everyone has an equal opportunity. At that time they can be considered and evaluated and we can see what is in the best interests of Canada and Canadian industry enabling us to get the greatest number of aircraft and the maximum industrial benefits.


PRIVILEGE
[Stage Direction]
MR. MacKAY-COMMENT BY MINISTER OF STATE FOR URBAN AFFAIRS
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a brief question of privilege, which I believe is covered by Section 155 at page 130 of the fourth edition of Beauchesne.
If I understand the record correctly, I rise on what I consider to be a despicable attempt to impute motives, made by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), that I am somehow adverse to the interests of Canadians of French descent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Coming from a minister whose record, to say the least, is undistinguished, I do not think anyone who knows me will take this very seriously.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: But I want to say to you, sir, that I resent it very much. Whether this particular act of political stupidity involving les Terrasses de la Chaudiere occurred on the banks of the South Saskatchewan River or of the East River into Glasgow, Nova Scotia, or whether it was entertained by someone of Polish or Lithuanian descent, or any descent, is absolutely immaterial. To take refuge behind such an imputation at a time when the government side is trying to promote national unity, in my opinion is not only counterproductive but as I say it is despicable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I would move that if the Minister of State for Urban Affairs has any tangible evidence whatsoever that I have ever been adverse to the interests of Quebeckers or Canadians of French descent, he should bring it forward, or he

June 29, 1978
Privilege-Mr. MacKay
should withdraw. I would like to suggest to him and to the Elouse that it will be an improvement, if we are going to start talking about hyphenated Canadians, that we put "Canadian" first instead of French or English.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker on many occasions outside the House the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) has said in Canada, despite the policy announced by our former leader, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) who is now our deputy leader, that the Progressive Conservative party was anti-Canadian and anti-Quebecker. This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) asked a very legitimate question, the minister again accused him, but this time in the House, of being anti-Quebecker and anti-Francophone.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member came to visit me many times in the province of Quebec. He has many friends among Quebeckers and the hon. member for Central Nova, in a similar case which occurred in this House, asked a question about people who are neither French-speaking nor Quebeckers. I find that the statement made in the House this afternoon by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs is a shame. It is not only an insult to the hon. member for Central Nova but also to Quebeckers, Mr. Speaker. An insult! And I insist on this. I have several friends on the government side and they all agree with me. Look at the smile on the minister's face. That's it. He knows. I therefore hope that the minister will not hesitate to withdraw what he said in the House this afternoon, Mr. Speaker.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question the privilege in full support of the remarks made by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay). Unequivocally the minister in question, not for the first time today but on a number of instances, has raised the point that the motivation is racist when members on this side of the House have made criticisms about policy or administrative matters, concerning individuals in this this country who happen to come from French lineage. I say that attitude on the part of the minister is despicable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: For me this is a very serious matter, particularly at this stage in the history of our country. In terms of matters of privilege, to call someone a racist, because that is what is involved, is just every bit as offensive as calling someone a liar in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[Mr. MacKay.J


John Edward Broadbent: The opportunity should be taken today to clarify this matter once and for all and to make it clear, particularly for people on the other side of the House, and by no means all of them-I want to make that clear. I restrict my point as it should be on a question of privilege to this minister today. The very least that hon. members on both sides of this House can do, who want a sense of decency about debate, will be to urge the minister to get up and unequivocally withdraw that accusation. It is very offensive for a member who has a serious question-and I do not care if the Canadian involved is of Ukrainian, English, German or French ancestry-but members have questions to raise from time to time and it is totally inappropriate to suggest that the motivation behind that question has anything to do with the racial ancestry of the person.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the acts of the minister and the words of the minister have been described as despicable. They could be described as being beneath contempt, they could be described as being vicious and vulgar, and they could be described in a lot of ways-


An hon. Member:: Certainly unparliamentary.


Walter David Baker: But the description of this might be unparliamentary.
I think it is important that this matter be cleared once and for all, not only for this House but for this country. Ministers of the Crown have to act in a way worthy as ministers of the Crown.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: But more than that they have to act in a way worthy of the best traditions of this parliament. I would ask you, sir, to consider the record today and to review it to see whether, in the context of this parliament, those words should stand. I reserve the right therefore to make a motion with regard to this matter either in my name or in the name of the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay), whichever is procedurally correct. However, I do not think this matter should be allowed to rest around in speeches condemning a minister who is beneath contempt. 1 think that the House and the Speaker have a part to play with regard to this kind of practice. It is very important.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) has raised this by way of a question of privilege. It may be that. It may be a point of order, or it may be neither one. I cannot be sure of that without examining, as suggested by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), the transcript later this day. I will look at that, weigh the arguments, and determine whether in fact privilege is here. Other hon. members will want to examine it to see whether a motion should follow. At the moment the matter has been raised by way of a question of privilege, yet no motion has been attached to it. Therefore there is no action the Chair can take. However,
June 29, 1978

the matter has been reserved. When the transcript is examined, we can see if anyone wishes to introduce a motion which I may have to act upon one day from now.


POINTS OF ORDER
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was hoping to raise this point of order, which relates to the business of parliament, during question period. I wonder if I could take this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House that parliament has a very special responsibility in the monitoring of events related to the Alaska pipeline. It is my understanding that the Standing Orders of this House have been amended to allow the northern pipeline committee to sit with a permanent reference.
A number of very important events have occurred in the last couple of weeks. It is therefore important for the House to know the government's disposition as to whether this committee will be activated during the recess of parliament. Is it the intention of the President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) to call the committee into action to refer to it the reports that he has received from the pipeline commissioner?
Since there has not been any evidence of the dialogue that has been carried on between the government and the provinces, I consider it particularly important that this committee be struck and that it meet during the recess of parliament. Can the President of Privy Council give the House an indication of the government's intention in this regard?


Mr. Speaker:: It being Thursday I was anticipating that the point of order that would normally follow the question period relating to the order of business would be put. Perhaps we can deal with that at the moment.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: With regard to the question raised by the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, there is a specific Standing Order which establishes a permanent reference for the pipeline committee. The standing order prescribes the reports that will be sent automatically to the committee. I will again examine the standing order to see whether any of these reports have come forward. The moment they do, of course, the committee will be activated. In the meantime it might be useful for the House to name the members of the new committee tomorrow, so that if any report comes forward during the recess the committee will be able to look at it.


ATTENDANCE OF MINISTER OF STATE FOR URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with reference to Your Honour's ruling with regard to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet). Tomorrow presumably being the last day when the House will be sitting, I wonder if it would be appropriate to
Privilege-Mr. Peters
get an assurance from the Minister of State that he will in fact be here when you hand down you ruling.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The other day I asked a question of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) concerning automobile safety. I was referring to recalls in the United States. At that time he indicated that because our laws were different from those of the United States there would be some delay in Canada.
The Minister sent me today, in the form of an "Information from the Minister of Transport", an indication that the examination by the Department of Transport did take place in relation to Chrysler cars, in particular the Horizon.
It goes on to state that they found the cars to handle in a normal and satisfactory manner. However, it further states they found that although with this type of steering, and it is a considerable difficulty which results in significant wheel oscillation, wheel behaviour was not uncommon in the past, it is not regarded as desirable and it is not a normal characteristic of contemporary vehicles. In other words, the model T-Fords did this, but ordinary cars do not. It goes on to say:
Transport Canada nevertheless-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before the hon. member goes any further, he should concentrate on persuading me that he has a point of order.


William Arnold Peters: Maybe it is clarification. I do not understand what the minister is saying. He goes on to say:
-Transport Canada nevertheless will request Chrysler Canada Limited to advise of what steps they are taking to eliminate this steering behaviour in future production of these vehicles.
It starts out by saying it is the normal and satisfactory manner. I wonder if the minister would be kind enough to clarify this because he certainly has not clarified it in this letter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if the hon. member is really seriously contending that every time a member of the House of Commons has a communication from a minister that he does not fully understand, he would be entitled to raise it by way of a point of order. I am afraid there would be an extension of the practice.

June 29, 1978
Introduction of Bills



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the sixth report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments.
If leave is given, I intend to move concurrence in this report later this day. I have had some discussion with the government House leader. He seems to be more amiable about this one than he was about the one yesterday.


PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Public Accounts- Mr. Huntington.
[Editor's Note: For texts of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table, in both official languages, the correspondence with the premier of Nova Scotia concerning a publicity agreement with that province.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Allan Joseph MacEachen: for leave to introduce Bill C-63, to amend the Canadian Elections Act (No. 2).


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

[ Translation]

Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-467 to amend the Broadcasting Act (annual report).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, in view of the CBC's significant operation deficit and its major role in the promotion of national unity, the purpose of this bill is to establish and maintain a link between the House of Commons and the CBC in providing that upon the tabling of its annual report it would be referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Acts for thorough examination of the corporation's operations.


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

Allan Joseph MacEachen: for leave to introduce Bill C-64, respecting uranium and thorium mines.


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

Allan Joseph MacEachen: for leave to introduce Bill C-65, respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto.


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

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Bonaventure-fles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard):
That the sixth report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that it is proper in the circumstances that the report be read to the House before consent is sought.
And the Clerk having read the report:


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member have the consent of the House to move concurrence in this report?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
June 29, 1978


Gerald William Baldwin: 1 so move.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion moved by the hon. member for Peace River. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a motion:
That the following be the members on behalf of this House of the Special Joint Committee on Proposals on the Constitution of Canada: Mr. Beatty, Mr. Breau, Mr. Broadbent, Mr. Bussieres, Mr. Caccia, Mr. Collenette, Mr. Dawson, Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier), Mr. Gauthier (Roberval), Mr. Goodale, Mr. Guay, Mr. Hnatyshyn, Mr. Lachance, Mr. La Salle, Mr. Lawrence, Mr. Lee, Mr. MacGuigan, Miss MacDonald (Kingston and The Islands), Mr. Stanfield and Mr. Whittaker, and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours thereof.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion comes before the House without notice and can be introduced only by consent. Is there consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I so move.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there has been an interest in having the subject matter of the Bank Act amending bill sent to the finance committee and I should like to move, with consent:
That the subject matter of Bill C-57, to revise the Bank Act, to amend the Quebec Savings Banks Act and the Bank of Canada Act, to establish the Canadian Payments Association and to amend other acts in consequence thereof, be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs and that during its consideration of the aforementioned matter the committee be empowered to engage expert assistance and to adjourn from place to place within Canada.
Petitions


Mr. Speaker:: This motion, too, is presented without notice, and consent for its introduction is therefore required. Does the hon. gentleman have consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I so move.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I should like to present a petition to the House on behalf of the officers, men, and civilian employees of the Newfoundland Constabulary. To mark the visit of Her Majesty the Queen to Newfoundland on July 26 they are petitioning the House that the government recommend to Her Majesty that this, the oldest police force in Canada, be designated the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, by Her Majesty the Queen. The petition prays that the House will so direct the government.


Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition to this honourable House signed by approximately 4,500 citizens of Canada. The petition prays that this House strongly oppose the importation, introduction or showing in Canada of the film "The Many Faces of Jesus" and further requests and prays that the Prime Minister and certain other ministers therein named use their good offices in conjunction with their provincial counterparts to cause the film not to be imported, introduced or shown in Canada, and that this petition be acted upon immediately.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to present a petition to this honourable House. It is signed by 4,250 residents of St. John's and other parts of Newfoundland, including 32 members of the Newfoundland House of Assembly from both sides. The petition is in connection with the dockyard at St. John's which is owned by the Government of Canada and operated by Canadian National. That dockyard is in a position to enter into contracts with the U.S.S.R. for the maintenance of some 60 vessels a year once a synchrolift has been provided. The work is expected to take about 18 months. The petition has been circulated by employees of the dockyard, supported by the St. John's City Council, the Ports Association, the Board of Trade represent-

June 29, 1978
Order Paper Questions
ing 900 men and women and 23,000 employees, as well as by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). Of course I support it by presenting it. The petitioners hope that action can be taken soon so that the work can get under way.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 785, 1,452, 1,535, 1,591, 1,676, 1,685, 1,689 and 1,824.
[ Text]


Mr. Jones: 1.	Is it possible for a public servant to affirm allegiance or subscribe to an oath for Canada and at the same time still be a citizen of a foreign country and also owe allegiance to that country?
2.	How many days lapsed between the time Dr. Bernard Sutet, originally of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, obtained his landed immigrant status and the time he was hired by the department?
3.	What is the normal amount of time taken by the Public Service Commission to hire a person from the time of the first interview until the final decision in the competition is made?


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by the Department of Employment and Immigration and the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. Yes.
2.	Dr. Sutet obtained landed immigrant status on March 27, 1968, and was hired by the Department of Manpower and Immigration on April 1, 1968. Consequently four days elapsed.
3.	The actual interviewing and selection of candidates is one of five major phases in the hiring process. It may require the Public Service Commission (or the department or agency to which the commission has delegated the authority to hire for its own needs) between one and fifteen working days to reach a decision in a specific competition after the first interview.


Mr. Masniuk: 1.	To date, how many orders have been placed with de Havilland of Canada Ltd. for DASH 7 STOL aircraft and who are the purchasers?
2.	To date, how many orders have been placed with Canadair Ltd. for Challenger aircraft and who are the purchasers?


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: 1. To date, ten orders have been placed with and announced by de Havilland of Canada, Ltd. for its DASH 7 STOL aircraft: Rocky Mountain Airways, Denver, 2; Spantax, Spain, 1;

Wardair, Edmonton, 2; Emirates Air Service, Abu Dhabi, 1; Greenlandair, Denmark, 2; Canadian Forces, 2.
2. To date, 91 firm orders have been placed with Canadair Ltd. for its Challenger aircraft and a letter of intent has been submitted by federal express of the U.S for an additional 25. The list of purchasers is extensive and has not been announced publicly by Canadair. Following normal commercial confidentiality practice, the list is held in confidence in order to preserve Canadair's competitive position.


Mr. Epp: 1.	Did the National Film Board produce the film "No Act of God" and, if so (a) who was the producer and how much was he/she paid (b) who researched and/or wrote the production and how much were they paid (c) what was the total cost of the production?
2.	To what extent were Canadian officials and experts in the field of nuclear energy consulted and advised as to the authenticity and factual content of the film?
3.	Is the film being distributed to schools and, if so, to what extent is it being promoted and distributed?
4.	Is the film being distributed to the public at large and, if so, how is it being promoted and distributed?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the National Film Board as follows: 1. The National Film Board did produce the Film "No Act of God", Mr. Ian Ball was the director researcher and commentary writer. Mr. Ball was paid a total of $14,023.83 for his work on the film. The total cost of the production was $104,893.
2.	The point of the film is the implications of the expansion of a system of breeder reactors, none of which currently exist in Canada. Consultation with Canadian officials was therefore not considered necessary.
3.	The film is being distributed through the NFB distribution system which includes the public school system. No special promotion in this sector has occurred, nor is planned.
4.	See 3 above. The NFB distribution system includes regional libraries from which the public at large may obtain copies of the film. No special promotion has occurred, nor is planned.


Mr. Patterson: 1.	What is the average length of service of employees of the Canadian Penitentiary Service?
2.	What percentage of employees remain with the service until pensionable age?
3.	What is the average length of service of employees of the government?


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Treasury Board as follows: The Canadian Penitentiary Service does not keep statistics in the manner in which the question was asked. However, we offer the following in reply: 1. Employees with less than one year's service, 13 per
June 29, 1978

cent; employees with between one to four years' service, 32 per cent; employees with between five to nine years' service, 21 per cent; employees with between 10-14 years' service, 15 per cent; employees with between 15-19 years' service, 9Vi per cent; employees with between 20-24 years' service, 5'/2 per cent; employees with over 25 years' service, 4 per cent;
2.	Approximately 4 per cent.
3.	Average length of service of public servants contributing under the Public Service Superannuation Act, 10.3 years.


Mr. Brisco: What is the best estimate of the amount spent by the Department of Communications in the constituency of Kootenay West from July 22, 1977 to date?


Mr. C. Douglas (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: In so far as the Department of Communications is concerned, the amount of money spent by the department in the constituency of Kootenay West from July 22, 1977, to date is best estimated at $1,300.


Mr. Brisco: What is the best estimate of the amount spent by the Department of Supply and Services in (a) Nelson (b) Castlegar (c) Trail (d) Creston (e) Nakusp (0 Kaslo (g) Rossland. British Columbia from (i) 1968 to 1974 (ii) 1974 to date?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Our records* reveal no contracting activity for those cities.
Prior to April 1, 1976, regional operations contracting is only available by province based on the location of the regional office.


Mr. Caouette (T6miscamingue): In the past ten years, did the government reimburse the provinces under the petroleum agreements and, if so, by year and province, in what amount?


Mr. Ed Lumley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: The following table shows payments to the provinces under the Oil Export Tax Act.
Payments to the Provinces under the Oil Export Tax Act.
($000)
Man.	Sask.	Alta.	B.C.	Total1973-	74 1974-	75 1975-	76	1,184 507 1	15,737 12,195 23	122,087 95,353 175	4,301 3,056 7	143,309 111,111 206
Order Paper Questions
These payments are equal to one-half of the oil export tax for the six-month period October, 1973, to April, 1974. This amount was allocated among the producing provinces on the basis of their oil production.


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 Canadian Pension Commission?
2.	How much was committed on each contract and to whom?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. (a) A study of Statistical Information System, (b) None.
2. Twelve thousand five hundred dollars to the bureau of management consultants, Department of Supply and Services, Ottawa, Ontario.


Mr. MacGuigan: For the fiscal year ended March 31 (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976 (d) 1977 (e) 1978, what was the amount of government aid, including but not limited to grants, loans, forgivable loans, insured loans and insured exports, given to (i) Hawker Siddeley Canada Limited (ii) Canadian Car (Pacific) Division in Vancouver of Hawker Siddeley Canada Limited?


Yvon Pinard: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:
Fiscal Year	Loans	Contributions1973-74	S -	$ 58,6591974-75	481,970	530,6481975-76	353,970	744,4651976-77	73,740	259,0011977-78	186,450	463,607
(ii) Any amounts for Canadian Car (Pacific) Division of Hawker Siddeley Canada Ltd., would be included in the above.
In so far as the Departments of Finance, the Regional Economic Expansion and Transport Canada are concerned: none.


Yvon Pinard: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

June 29, 1978
Petroleum Statistics



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-12, to require the reporting of certain financial and other statistics relating to the affairs of certain petroleum companies carrying on business in Canada, as reported (with an amendment) from the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Mr. Speaker:: A few days ago, in looking ahead to the consideration of report stage of this bill, the House will remember that I made reference to an amendment which had been made to the bill in the standing committee. The amendment relates to a clause which would provide that after the fifth anniversary of the passage or coming into force of this bill it shall stand referred to the first meeting thereafter of the committee of this House to which ordinarily matters on oil and gas are referred.
I indicated at the time that I was dealing with another motion of a similar nature regarding another bill and that I had some very serious concerns about the ability of the House to accept that kind of clause. As the House knows, I examined the precedents in respect to a similar measure attached to the Export Development Act which was in due course accepted by the Chair but defeated, and I observed to the House, as I am going to do now, that the clause which has been added by the standing committee is one which I find 1 am unable to interfere with on procedural grounds.
However, I want to caution the House again that this process began with two clauses associated with two different bills, one relating to regulations and statutory instruments, whereby a committee of both Houses was being set up, the purpose of which was to examine and to endeavour to check in a precautionary way possible excesses of power taken under the executive by the use of the regulation and the statutory instrument. Therefore, it was central to the work of that committee that every regulation or statutory instrument stand automatically referred to it.
This kind of clause has also been used-and quite appropriately-with respect to the annual report of the Auditor General to ensure that this report, once filed, will stand automatically referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. That is quite appropriate.
With regard to other measures such as the Export Development Act, the Air Canada Act, the Canadian National Railways Financing and Guarantee Act and other measures, similar clauses have been used to ensure that the annual reports of various Crown corporations, once filed with the House, are automatically referred to a standing committee. That is a slight extension of the original practice. Now the precedent is

put forward with respect to Bill C-19, relating to a designation of certain petroleum products by a board authorized under that statute, so that every designation made by that board will be automatically referrred to an appropriate standing committee of the House without any action by the House. That is a further extension because it is not an annual report of a Crown corporation, and it does not require any intervening action by the House.
Now in this particular case we have taken the practice one step further. There is no order or designation as is required in Bill C-19. There is no annual report filed with the House. There is no intervening action. There is no statutory instrument or regulation. There is no Auditor General's report, and there is no intervening action required by the House under this particular clause. Therefore, after the fifth anniversary of this statute, by virtue of this clause, this statute will stand automatically referred, not for examination by parliament, but to a standing committee of parliament, and I defy any member of the House of Commons to determine which standing committee and whether any standing committee is seized of it as an order of reference by this House, because in fact it is referred to the first meeting of a standing committee to which ordinarily oil and gas matters are referred, the first meeting after the fifth anniversary, not the second or subsequent meetings.
Therefore, four or five committees may be involved. The Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs may be occupied with matters relating to the taxation of oil and gas. The Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works is always occupied with discovery and other dispostions of oil and gas matters. The Standing Committee on Transport and Communications may very well be occupied with other aspects of it, and heaven knows how many other committees may be occupied with different aspects of oil and gas matters. At their first meetings after the fifth anniversary of the coming into force of this statute they may all consider themselves properly seized by virtue of this order, and there is no particular order of reference and no direction as to what they are supposed to do, how they are supposed to do it, when they are supposed to report, and what powers they have.
I therefore point out to the House simply that while I may not be able to interfere with this practice on procedural grounds, I want to indicate how far the House has come from the original practice and how difficult it is going to be at some point in the future to deal with the proliferation of these kinds of clauses. There may not be a point of procedure today, but I certainly expect that there will be a very fascinating point of procedure five years from now, when some committee, several committees, or perhaps no committees consider themselves seized of this matter, to determine what happens as a result of this clause.
I only caution the House. While I have now decided that I cannot interfere on procedural grounds, I do caution the House that we are getting into a practice which will lead us into, if not a dangerous, certainly a very sloppy practice which will create problems for future parliaments.
June 29, 1978

I think the desire is that parliament keep some kind of control or a rein on any program which is introduced in legislation. That may be very desirable, but surely the sensible course is for parliament to enact a clause which will require, as in, for example, representation statutes, that a minister-in that case the Prime Minister-is required by the statute to move a reference at a certain time. Presuming that since the Prime Minister or a minister will move a reference, that reference will carry if there is an interest in having matters examined. That requires an intervening step by parliament, and that seems to me to be the kind of practice which is a good deal safer than the one we are moving to in a rapid and, I think, dangerous way.
Nevertheless, I indicated I would review it. I have reviewed it. I do not think I can interfere with it on procedural grounds. Therefore the report stage of this bill should go ahead.


Otto Emil Lang: that Bill C-12, to require the reporting of certain financial and other statistics relating to the affairs of certain petroleum companies carrying on business in Canada, as reported (with an amendment) from the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Otto Emil Lang: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


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


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could open my brief remarks by notifying the Chair that concerns about procedural matters might be academic because, as soon as we form a government, we will change this legislation or get rid of it. The kindest thing to say about this legislation is that it is lousy. It is not necessary. At no time has the minister or any of his colleagues offered a sensible argument for the necessity of this legislation. No evidence or data has been presented which would in any way, shape or form, indicate any necessity for passing this legislation, the effect of which would be to impose upon 85 or 90 oil companies in Canada the necessity of supplying detailed, extensive financial information at a frequency to be determined by the minister.
Second, the government claims it needs to know this data. It claims it needs to know what the oil companies are doing with their money. We have not been told why the government needs to know this. Either it cannot establish why, or it does not know why it needs to know, but we have not been told. The government does not say why, but it says it does have this need. In that context it is now getting this information voluntarily. Right now the government is soliciting this information from the top 35 companies in the country which account for some 85 per cent to 90 per cent of the total cash flow of this
Petroleum Statistics
industry. Not only have they not established why they need the information, but they are getting it anyway! So why is this bill brought in in the first place?
We are told by the minister that out of the 35 companies one company said, "Look, we think we may be in violation of the securities commission's provincial law if we supply the information to you and not to our stockholders. We are nervous about that and we would rather you passed a law enforcing us to do it." Apparently that is why the government is proceeding with this bill. They have not told us which company made the inquiry, whether any representations were made or any legal opinions offered to companies that such was not the case, or any assurances given that information which they provide would not be used in such a way that it would cause them legal difficulties.
The other aspect that I find offensive in this bill, and which I wish to draw to the attention of the House, is that while the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works was considering the bill, the government was announcing, through the Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Abbott), that it is concerned about the paperwork governments impose on industry and it will reduce it. The government even appointed somebody called the controller of the paperwork burden, who has an office, and the minister sent members of parliament a letter saying that if we have any complaints from businesses in our constituencies regarding the paperwork burden imposed by governments, we should let the controller know and he will see what he can do about it. The very same day this letter was written by the Minister of State (Small Business), members of the committee heard government members demanding that we pass this bill which imposes extra paperwork on business. That is the sole effect of this bill.
The data that the government wants is obtainable from StatsCan, from the provincial conservation boards on oil and gas matters, and from the National Energy Board in a general sense, because to drill a well in this country you need a permit, to export oil and gas you need permits, and to do any sale of oil and gas, you need permits. All the information is available, but no, the government wants to impose additional paperwork on these industries to get the information more directly, at the same time as we have another minister boasting of how responsive the government is to complaints about extra paperwork and the cost involved.
The Minister of State for Small Business said that the cost of that paperwork, the red tape, is $10 billion. If it is such a serious problem then why in blazes does the minister say out of the other side of his mouth that he will introduce a bill which will require more paperwork? If somebody said that he does not trust the government which is deceiving us, which is insincere, and people in the government then said, "Gee, that is not fair," this would be understandable. But how can anybody trust the government when one minister says the government will cut down on the paperwork and another minister says the government will impose more? When we ask
6868

June 29, 1978
Petroleum Statistics
them why, they say it is because the information is important. If that is an excuse, they can use that excuse to wiretap everybody's phone, to open everybody's mail, to inspect everybody's income tax return, to break into any home and look in dresser drawers. If that is a sufficient rationale for the government to pass this kind of legislation, then it can pry into anybody's affairs.
The other reason that I find this bill so objectionable is the enforcement provisions. They were copied, word for word, from the Income Tax Act, sections 230 and 231, which I describe as Gestapo provisions, and this is not an inaccurate description. They would allow an official to tramp into somebody's office, seize their books, and keep them for 120 days. If somebody wants a copy of them, they have to apply to a court and pay for the cost of copying them.
Hon. members opposite laugh, but the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand) might be interested to hear the story of one of his officials who, while investigating the case of the sulphur combines in Calgary under the same provisions in the Combines Investigation Act, seized as well copies of an itinerary for an employee golf tournament with match-ups, schedules, and so on. So when an official of the company asked whether he could have this itinerary back because the golf tournament was coming up in a couple of days, he was told by the minister's official, "Sure, come to Ottawa and you can go through the books. If you want a copy of your own records, you can copy them and pay for it." That is a true story, and it is exactly what happens when you give officials the kind of authority that we are asked to grant in this bill.


William Warren Allmand: Give me his name.


Harvie Andre: I will. It is exactly what happened, and it will always happen so long as that kind of stupid law exists.
As a contrast to the stupidity of putting in that kind of enforcement provision, there are provisions in the Income Tax Act and the Statistics Act which require the gathering of important invoices. If an official has doubts about the validity of information which a company provides, he can look through the company's books, and that is fine, legitimate, and fair. But to put in a provision that an official can seize the books and you cannot get them back for 120 days, is stupid, it is power gone mad, demanded by stupid officials and stupid ministers who put forward such legislation.
There is a provision in here which says that a minister can demand from a director of a company the provision of information in these forms. In other words, if, for example, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) became angry because he lost a golf game to his old friend, Donald Macdonald, he could write him a letter saying, "I demand that you, a director of Shell Canada, supply all this information within 30 days". Under this bill it says he can do that. What kind of stupid idiot would write that into an act? What kind of stupid government would put forward something like that? This bill is full of that kind of stupidity.

The only reason I have not brought forward scads of amendments at report stage to remove this stupidity from the act was the existence of the five-year review. In five years a committee of the House can look at the bill and say it is stupid and recommend it be thrown out. Because of the potential of the five-year review, and the fact that in five years time most of the idiots over there will be gone, as well as the idiots who drafted it in the minister's department, so that we will be able to draft legislation which assumes that most Canadians are honest and trustworthy, and that one does not need a cannon when a flyswatter will do-


William Warren Allmand: This is a really intelligent speech.


Harvie Andre: It is for that reason alone that the bill has been allowed to come forward today and that we will see it through third reading. But I make the commitment that as soon as we form a government, we will get rid of this type of nonsense wherever it occurs in any piece of legislation.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to take part in this debate. I thought there was general agreement in committee to pass this legislation speedily. Certainly I will not detain the House. However, I would not want silence to give an impression to those who follow the proceedings of this House that, as far as my colleagues and I are concerned, we share the view of the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre).
We have waited a long time for this piece of legislation. We have been impatient to see it brought forward, and certainly we will be very glad to see it passed. The hon. member for Calgary Centre said that he does not know why we need it. Any person who looks at what has happened over the past four or five years will know why we need this legislation. Ever since the OPEC countries began to push up the world price of oil, we have seen an increase in the price of well-head oil in this country of 400 per cent. The government has had to agree to increases in the prices of petroleum products far in excess of what the cost of producing those products warranted.
In 1973, 1974, and 1975 members of the New Democratic Party said continually that they opposed the increases in the price of oil. However, they indicated that they would be prepared to support them if we were assured that the extra revenues, which were going into the coffers of the oil industry-


Harvie Andre: And the government's.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, the federal and provincial governments'. They said that they would support them if the extra revenues were used to carry on an exploration and development program so that the country would have increased oil and gas supplies in the future. The then minister of energy, mines and resources, the Hon. Donald Macdonald, assured us that that was exactly what the government wanted. The government, some of the producing provinces, and the oil industry were going to put some of their
June 29, 1978

moneys back into development. At that time we said that we would like some proof that the oil industry was putting its money into Canadian exploration and development. In the last five years there has been a greater proportionate increase in the money spent on overseas and foreign exploration and development than on Canadian.
We wanted evidence. In 1974 the then minister of energy, mines and resources told the committee and the House of Commons that he would undertake to monitor these companies. We know the results.
Not all companies have responded. We have had great difficulties. We did not receive a report until the latter part of 1976, as well as a report for 1977. The information has been only partial. It has not been possible to obtain complete data. Now as many as five companies are refusing to comply. Therefore legislation making reporting mandatory is absolutely essential if the government is to know what the oil industry is doing with its exorbitant profits.
I do not think the government, or anyone who supports this bill, should apologize for mandatory reporting. The people of this country have put literally hundreds of millions of dollars of additional revenue into the pockets of the oil industry. If the oil industry claims that money will be used for exploration and development, we have a right to know whether that statement is true. We have a right to see the books. We have a right to all the data which will confirm the claims of the oil industry.
Even the very preliminary report of the monitoring agency in 1977 showed that from 1971 to 1976 the Canadian oil indusry had a total cash flow of $13.3 billion, of which $6.7 billion was after tax profits. In other words, 50.4 per cent of the total take of the Canadian oil industry was represented by after tax profits. We would have never known that if some monitoring did not take place. When we look at how the money has been allocated we find that while profits have zoomed, the amount of money spent on Canadian exploration has lagged behind. Therefore, rather than the government feeling very proud about bringing in this legislation, I say to them, "What has been keeping you? What have you been waiting for?" We should have had this legislation at least three or four years ago. Now that it is here, I am anxious to see it passed and I am proud to support it.
The basic weakness in this legislation is that while the government will get all the data from the oil companies to see whether they have put the money they received from Canadian consumers into exploration and development, there are no teeth in this legislation to compel the oil industry to put its extra revenues into development and exploration. What will the government do if it finds, as can be shown already, that the hundreds of millions of dollars Canadians are forking out are not going into exploration and development? Nothing in this legislation gives the government an iota of power to do anything about that. This process will continue.
Next Monday the price of oil will increase $1 a barrel. At the same time the price of gas will increase automatically by 17 cents per thousand cubic feet. It will go up again on January 1, 1979. Twice a year there is a $1 a barrel increase in
Maritime Code Act
the price of oil with a concomitant increase in the price of gas. This puts more money into the pockets of the major oil companies, practically all of which are foreign-owned and controlled. The government needs some power to be able to say to the industry that its monitoring of their financial situation indicates, in spite of the higher prices and swollen profits, that this money has not been ploughed back into exploration and development. The government should have the power to tell them that either it will let the prices go back to where they were, or some taxation method will be imposed by the federal and provincial governments in order for them to invest that money into developing Canadian resources.
Canadians have been ripped off, and they are continuing to be ripped off. There is no remedy in this legislation, except that it will give us an opportunity to get the facts. For that reason I support this legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed. [Translation]
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I should now like the House to proceed with Bill C-54, An Act to provide a maritime code for Canada and to amend the Canada Shipping Act and other Acts in consequence thereof.


MARITIME CODE ACT
Otto Emil Lang: that Bill C-54, to provide a maritime code for Canada and to amend the Canada Shipping Act and other acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, since I believe there is agreement to deal very quickly with this bill at all stages today, I would suggest we amend the motion in order that we may deal with the bill in the committee of the whole, report it back to the House, and give it third reading today.


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


An hon. Member:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.
80045-67V2

June 29, 1978
Maritime Code Act


William Arnold Peters: No, Mr. Speaker, let it take the ordinary course, and when we come to that stage it can be asked that it go into committee.


An hon. Member:: We have been waiting for five years.


William Arnold Peters: 1 want it too, but we are not going to do it that way.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the House ready for the question on the motion for second reading and reference to the committee?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the point my colleague, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), was raising was not well understood. He wanted second reading to be disposed of first. Now that that has been done I think he will give consent, as the rest of us will, to changing the order and dealing with this bill in the committee of the whole.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is that agreed to by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon-Mr. Turner in the chair.
Mr. Forrestall:: Mr. Chairman, there has been some discussion in respect of this bill. There are some 8 clauses together with numerous appropriate schedules, in turn containing over 100 clauses, and it might be expeditious if the minister or the acting House leader were to request unanimous consent in order to deal with all clauses together with the schedules at one time.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the hon. member's comments. I would suggest that by agreement we deal with all clauses as a group at the same time. Let me point out that this somewhat extraordinary procedure results from discussions about a desire to move this bill forward quickly. It is a bill which has been dealt with, in essentially the same form, very thoroughly by the House of Commons and the Senate. We are simply confirming the work we have already done on a previous occasion, except for one change which I think is suitable to hon. members generally.


The Deputy Chairman:: Is that agreed by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clauses 1 to 8 inclusive agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Schedules agreed to.

Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: When shall the report be received?


An hon. Member:: Now, by consent.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave, now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: By leave, now. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Otto Emil Lang: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief in my observations regarding this bill. When I was going back over some of the history about the bringing together of those matters relating to the rewriting of the old Canada Shipping Act and the present form of the Maritime Code I was reminded of the activities of a former member of this House, now a judge of the family court in the province of New Brunswick, Judge Bell. I think it appropriate to remind hon. gentlemen of what that distinguished member said regarding this matter, a part of which is reported at page 4716 of Hansard for May 13, 1954, almost 25 years ago. That distinguished member for Saint John-Lancaster opened the debate on the question of the Maritime Merchant Marine when we were considering estimates. Members will recall that in those days estimates were considered on the floor of the House where we often asked interesting questions and had lively debates. It is of interest to note some of his remarks as reported at page 4716. He is reported as having said:
It is obvious that the government is scrapping our merchant fleet. The thing that annoys me more than anything is that they are not even scrapping it in a businesslike way.
We have had 25 years to consider those words and the implications. It is long overdue, but we have reached this stage in the reorganization of the Canada Shipping Act and the Maritime Code. We have before us books 1 and 2 of approximately five books dealing with certain aspects of ships, ships registry, and the definition of ships, as well as arrest, detention, seizure of cargo and so on.
The consideration of this bill is appropriate at this time for a number of other reasons. We are spending approximately $3.5 billion to $4 billion annually for the movement of Canadian goods out of the country and the movement into Canada of imported goods from offshore. We are putting the profits from these movements into the hands of foreign owners. After the
June 29, 1978

warnings some 25 years ago of Judge Bell, perhaps it is time we moved swiftly to books 3, 4 and 5, in the hope that the totality of these five books will lead to greater progress in the re-establishment of a Canadian fleet.
I must comment on the degree of flexibility shown by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). This is the first occasion that a minister has allowed a standing committee informal access to the regulations to be brought forward in support of a bill. This is a very useful step in the progress of a bill as complex as this, and the production of books Nos. 1 and 2. I hope the same will apply in respect to books Nos. 3, 4 and 5, and the book dealing with the legal protection of men and officers serving on Canadian registered ships.
It has been about five years since this review was actively in front of us, and about three years since we began the final form of books 1 and 2. We might already have had those books had it not been for the controversy surrounding the provisions that were originally in the act dealing with the closing of our coastal waters to other than Canadian registered ships. Those items have been removed from the bill, but notwithstanding that fact, I think it is quite proper to urge the minister to present to the House at the earliest possible time new suggestions for coastal provisions. If the House is to sit next fall, I think we should proceed to this matter almost immediately and treat it as having some priority and importance. We also want to have the first comprehensive examination of books Nos. 3, 4 and 5 in the fall as these will comprise the balance of the new maritime code.
Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I want to make one or two observations which are related and interwoven. In consideration of matters of marine and maritime interest, this House should not proceed from the philosophy or policy that there is a difference between shipbuilding, ship repairing, and the establishment of a Canadian merchant marine service. The matters are too closely related for us to make the mistake of continuing to separate them. I say that because, as I look back at what I understand to be one of the principal reasons for the necessity to separate these two questions, that of the instability of labour, for example, I am reminded that in this transitory stage of the development of a new maritime code the SIU have not withdrawn their services from the shipping community in Canada for some 12 years. That is not entirely true with respect to marine matters as there has been a legal withdrawal of services by other unions. The SIU, seamen, merchant officers and marine engineers, however, have contributed to an atmosphere in which the government should and could go forward with the full co-operation of the opposition in developing plans for the re-establishment of a Canadian marine fleet capable of moving a significant amount of goods in and out of Canada.
We welcome the final stages of books Nos. 1 and 2 and look forward to the early introduction of the coasting provision and the introduction of books Nos. 3, 4 and 5 in the not too distant future. I think I must compliment the Minister of Transport. I
Maritime Code Act
rarely do that. Indeed, it might be much more pleasant to recite 101 reasons why he should resign because he has made such a mess of transport in this country. I think I will reduce it to 100 reasons, however, because in this case he has done a thoroughly good job.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, as an ordinary Canadian-


Some hon. Members:: No, no!


William Arnold Peters: I should like to say a few words although I do not yet represent a maritime area of Canada. After the next election, however, I hope to represent the salt water port in northern Ontario.
As a country with very long coastlines and as a trading nation, we have a great need for ships and all things maritime which have been sadly lacking for many years. The SIU, pilots associations, engineers and other organizations have demanded over the years that we build ships capable of transporting Canadian goods across the world, but these demands fell on deaf ears.
I, too, must congratulate the Minister of Transport for the start he has made on this maritime code which will eventually comprise of five books. We are passing the first two now. In my opinion, when the code is completed it will be the best in the world, but we will have no navy. It is a code for nothing-a paper code. If it does not apply to anything then it is of no value.
The other stage in a maritime code must be the development of an industry. The Darling report indicated that Canada should have a shipbuilding industry and ships to haul Canadian goods all over the world as is done by many other nations less maritime than Canada. I hope the government will consider the development of drydocks such as are being asked for in St. John's and Halifax, and will ensure that if money is made available to build ships it will not be possible for the company three years later to put those ships under Panamanian registry, as has happened even with Canadian Pacific and Canadian National ships.
Most Canadians, whether from the prairies, inland areas of the country, or the coastal regions, are interested in a Canadian merchant navy that will use Canadian ships to haul Canadian goods around the world. I had the opportunity of sitting on the committee which discussed many of the clauses in this bill over the last couple of years.

I believe that we are developing a maritime code that will be useful. If it is applied it will mean that Canadian seamen will be plying the trade on the Canadian coasts and goods will be hauled in Canadian bottoms. This will only occur if the government is willing to undertake a massive shipbuilding industry to provide the means so that the industry can be viable. Then we will not only produce ships for the flags of

June 29, 1978
Canada Elections Act
convenience but we will provide ships for Canadians that will have Canadians working on those ships. We will be operating under one of the safest and more efficient codes in existence anywhere in the world. Canadians will have that pride again that they had during the war when they knew that their ships were as good as any on the sea, that they were built economically and operated as economically as any other fleet in the world.
We will hopefully regain in the future the loss we sustained by the selling out of the merchant navy, particularly of the liberty ships which created the great wealth that Onassis brought to Greece at the expense of the Canadian public and cashing in on one of the engineering feats of C. D. Howe.


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


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


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Allan Joseph MacEachen: that Bill C-63, to amend the Canada Elections Act (No. 2) be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I understood there was some intention of handling this in the committee of the whole rather than putting it into the standing committee.


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


Mr. Dick:: Mr. Speaker, I object. I do not give unanimous consent to have this bill read the second time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: As there is no unanimous consent, this bill will be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I understand this bill was introduced today for the first reading and earlier today it was referred to the next sitting of this House. For this bill to be introduced for second reading today I believe it requires unanimous consent. I am not giving unanimous consent to have two stages in one day. I have relayed that information to

the government House leader. The government is trying to do something by the back door, and I have said previously that I was not in agreement with it. I do not think it is appropriate to do two stages in one day.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member is saying about me is absolutely wrong. I did not receive from him any indication that he would not agree to the House proceeding with this bill today. Now, if he refuses to give his consent he alone wil bear the responsibility before the people of Canada. The next item we are prepared to deal with is Bill C-48.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. member who just spoke, and also the whip of his party, will recognize that I sat, perhaps improperly, in the Prime Minister's seat during question period, and had a lengthy discussion with the government House leader. I advised him of my position on this matter at that time. I asked him if he was willing to undertake to delete clauses 1 and 2 which go to the freedom of speech matter which has never been debated in the House. I advised him I would be glad to let this bill go through which would clear up the deal on the financing of the by-elections under 60 days. I put the question to him. 1 understood a week ago that that was the only thing that would be dealt with in a bill coming in. I understand the government now wants to broaden it into the Roach case.
I denied unanimous consent when it was brought through the back door on an amendment to Bill C-5 at the report stage last March. I am indicating now that I am not willing to give unanimous consent at this time. I believe it goes to the fundamental right of freedom of speech in this country and it should be given a full airing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is either unanimous consent or not. There is no unanimous consent at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the point of order that has been raised, may I draw your attention to the fact that there has been some reference to discussions among the parties. I would like to confirm that there have been discussions about this bill among all the parties. It was drafted and re-drafted. It was our understanding that the final draft met the wishes of all the parties and that we were going to proceed with it today. The hon. member who is objecting to taking second reading today because we had first reading today is standing on his rights under the rules, but it would be possible for this bill to be presented tomorrow for second reading and I hope the government will consider doing that. Perhaps in the meantime there might be further discussion so that once it is called for second reading tomorrow we will not run into any further snags.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I understood there was unanimous consent for it to be read the second time.
June 29, 1978


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I have two things to say. As far as the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is concerned, we will take it into consideration; as to the comments of the hon. member who spoke before him,
I will simply say that he was in a chair which was not meant for him and probably will never be since he said he made those suggestions to the government House leader. I ask that we proceed now with consideration of Bill C-48.


CUSTOMS TARIFF
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, May 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien that Bill C-48, to amend the Customs Tariff and to amend An Act to amend the Customs Tariff, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.
William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this most important subject I want to relate my concern, as I am sure I relate the concern of members of parliament on all sides of the House, that in talking about customs tariff bills we are talking about a bill that affects the jobs of Canadians from coast to coast.
There is one thing at the outset of my brief remarks that I want to make abundantly clear. I am not going to enter into the debate vis-a-vis protection or free trade. I am not in any way directly or indirectly coming down on the side of free trade or high protection in my remarks this afternoon. Whether one is looking at the European Economic Community, Japan, the third world, the United States or whatever, I recognize many of the obvious factors involving free trade that will occur in the years to come.
I want to point out in my remarks this afternoon some of the obvious pitfalls the government is leading us into in terms of Canadian jobs here at home. If we are going the free trade route, there are many ways I agree with the government that is desirable in the long term. If you look at the reports of the Economic Council of Canada and some of the Tariff Board conclusions, it is obvious, whether we like it or not, we have to be competitive in trade with countries all over the world.
If this is so, I ask the government during this debate, why so much secrecy involving our GATT discussions in particular, and our tariff negotiations in general? If the government is going the route it seems to be going, why has it not articulated in detail by this time an industrial strategy for Canada?
There is a third consideration I bring before the House this afternoon. I am not just saying this myself. I am basing my remarks on a thorough review of what the Economic Council of Canada has said, what the Tariff Board conclusions are, the task force report on the textile industry recently given to the
Customs Tariff
Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner), and the consultative task force report published last February.
If we are going the route the government seems to be going vis-a-vis GATT and tariff negotiations, and again I underline the fact that I am not talking about free trade versus protection, the old classical debate, what alternative plans does this government have? Since it has not articulated a policy, and it is not just me asking this, because the Economic Council of Canada warned the government about it, what alternative plans does the government have for the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who will be out of work because of its lack of preparedness and there being no industrial strategy?
We asked the minister in the House today if the government would adopt the consultative task force report vis-a-vis aid to the textile industry. The report has been in the hands of the government for a long time. The only answer we got was that he was not even aware of the report, let alone having read it.
We are not just talking about jobs. We often talk about jobs for low income workers who lack mobility. It is impractical to retrain them. We found that in the last few years when we were discussing some of the retraining possibilities for textile workers, particularly in the province of Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak this afternoon about our tariff negotiations. There is an employment problem for Canadians in the textile, clothing, furniture and footwear industries throughout Canada. More particularly, we are talking this afternoon about 150,000 jobs in the province of Quebec.


An hon. Member:: Did I hear 150,000?


William Heward Grafftey: That is correct. If the hon. member read the report of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, he saw as I did that these six traditional employment sectors account for 270,000 jobs in Canada, including 150,000 in Quebec. I hope that as concerns our tariff negotiations and the policy that the present government has followed far too long, during the holidays, the ministers, and especially the Quebec ministers will visit Quebec to explain to these 150,000 workers affected by this government policy what alternatives they are considering if there is a loss of employment in those traditional sectors. I have the evidence right before me, Mr. Speaker, in two relevant quotations taken from a document published- and I believe the hon. member should listen to this-by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce in February 1978 and entitled "Background Information for Advisory Tax Forces" which concerns our tariff negotiations. Here they are:
(a) Quebec has supported the major part of the recent loss of employment in Canada in the manufacturing sector. According to our data, this sector has lost, between October 1976 and October 1977, an average of 34,000 jobs including about 30,000 in Quebec alone-
-that is 30,000 jobs, and not a single government member has spoken in support of these workers-
-and mainly in the traditional sectors-

June 29, 1978
Customs Tariff
-which I have already mentioned, that is the textile, furniture, footwear and clothing industries-
-and the pulp and paper industry.
With regard to the other report, I should like to quote the second paragraph, Mr. Speaker:
(b) Efforts to encourage a recovery in the industrial sector, however, will continue to aim at a few industries, namely the traditional sectors of textiles, certain types of clothing, footwear and furniture, as well as some electronic industries.
And now, we come to the most important sentence in the government policy, Mr. Speaker, which I hope hon. members from Quebec will explain to Quebeckers during the parliamentary holidays, and I quote:
The policy to be adopted with regard to those industries-
-textile industries and the others-
-should be aimed at reducing the work force progressively through better rationalization of the industry while ensuring, during the transition period, the minimum indispensable protection.
Are government members going to explain this to our Quebec fellow citizens? This is government policy in spite of the statements made in the House of Commons by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner). 1 have here the actual policy of the government which concerns 150,000 Quebeckers, Mr. Speaker. These euphemisms do not really hide the fact that, according to the federal government, we might do without those traditional sectors in the province of Quebec. The minister can declare vehemently that he signed some rather advantageous bilateral agreements in this area but, Mr. Speaker, how can the government explain its policy to the 150,000 workers affected in the province of Quebec?
As I already mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, the unemployment rate in Quebec has already reached 11.5 per cent but, as you know, in cities where those industries are established it often reaches almost 20 per cent. Unfortunately in that sector, manpower mobility is often very low and, as was demonstrated in the past, recycling is almost impossible particularly for older workers.
If the government is to follow such a policy in the future, as in the past, what alternative will it offer to city workers in Quebec? Hon. members on the government side will realize that it is impossible, but as I already said, according to the report, Mr. Speaker, we have already lost, in the last months, in the province of Quebec, more than 30,000 jobs in those traditional sectors. Motherhood statements made by Quebec members to protect the rights of our fellow citizens and discussions on the constitution are all very well from time to time but there are some people in my province who would rather have bread and butter on their table now and again. How will you explain that kind of policy not only to Quebeckers but to the 270,000 workers in Canada who are affected in those traditional sectors?
[Mr. Grafftey.l


Mr. Boulanger:: You are an actor!
You don't even look serious when you talk.


William Heward Grafftey: I am very, very serious.

It is very interesting. The hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) says that I am an actor, but he has not made any speech lately to protect the economic rights of his fellow citizens. He may say that it is a comic subject but I do not think that Quebec workers will find the subject so comic. [English]
In the task force report presented to the government, more particularly to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce by the task force members, they have warned time and time again, that while the minister announced in the House some days ago that an accord was signed with seven countries through bilateral agreements, some favourable to Canada in many ways-I could criticize the detail, but generally speaking it was good to see those seven countries reach bilateral accord. The Economic Council has put reports before the minister, the task force has spoken, but the government does not want to pay attention. Each one of those reports said there were 14 other countries involved and as long as they are not included in bilateral agreements there was a moving danger not only to the industries directly concerned but to jobs all across Canada, particularly in Quebec.
I am not an old-fashioned protectionist. I understand the long-term benefits of free trade in the world in which we live today. But any government that goes that route must do its homework. Why so much secrecy in these tariff negotiations? Why are we the only country in the western world without an industrial strategy? One of the central aspects of any industrial strategy involves our approach to tariff negotiations in general and to what is going on under GATT in particular.
I am told by some of my friends that compared with the delegations of other countries to the GATT negotiations we are a bunch of amateurs. We are the laughing stock of the western world. Are the ministers and bureaucrats who are proposing to sacrifice the jobs of Canadians on the altar of expediency planning to visit these towns in Quebec and explain what has been done at their expense?
I have one town in my riding, Cowansville, which has been badly affected. This is not just theory. A thousand jobs have been lost in one company alone. The government says it is inefficient. The Textile Institute says its productivity is among the best in Canada and North America. If they were inefficient they would ask for protection. They do not ask for special protection, they ask the government to do its homework in the same way as every government in the free world does. In one textile mill a thousand jobs have been lost. A furniture factory in my constituency is all but closed down with a loss of 500 jobs. Two shoe companies are right up against it. But the
June 29, 1978

government just sits there, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) says we have to take it on the chin. Well, well! I ask you.
We talk about tariff negotiations. We talk about our general attitude. We review some of the obvious things the government will have to do vis-a-vis free trade in the medium term and the long term in the modern world. There has been a lot of general agreement. There is an obvious benefit in an ability to trade with every country in the world both in the medium and in the long term. But the government will have to do its homework more efficiently in terms of industrial strategy, sending out negotiators who know what they are about, and not surrounding the negotiations with their secrecy.
The board has warned the government that though there are bilateral agreements with seven countries there are still 14 others to be considered. Yet the government, so we are told, has not even read the report. We are in trouble, Mr. Speaker. It is all very well for the boys in the ivory tower here in Ottawa with their big, fat salaries to say that the shoe industry and the textile industry and the clothing industry and all these industries are dispensable. Sometimes, you know, they go down to James Street and get the financial and business community saying that too. It is a buzz word in the clubs. Will they go into the towns of this country where the low income workers who lack mobility live, and explain this dispensable theory to them? The minister smiles, but the fact is that a lot of these industries are disappearing, not just the weak ones but the strong ones.
Go to Geneva. Elave your parties and do your work for an hour a day, but think of these workers before you adopt the free trade theory, one which is good in many ways. Do your homework, in the name of God! Let us have an industrial strategy. Lift the veil of secrecy from the negotiations and then, maybe, you will get a lot more support and confidence than is evident right now.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a few minutes in which to speak on this question of customs and tariffs. It is propitious I should have run across a newspaper article in the Vancouver Sun written by an associate editor based in Ottawa, and entitled, "Central Canada Needs Us-For Hosing." As an introduction I should like to read part of this article so that we might study this discussion in context as it affects the various regions of our country. The dateline is Montreal, and the article reads:
Pierre Laurin, director of University of Montreal I'.cole des Hautes Etude Commerciales (HEC) and brother of Quebec cultural affairs minister Camille Laurin said at the close of HEC's conference on the economic implications of Quebec independence that he hoped the ideas that had been discussed would receive wide dissemination.
So they should.
In particular, some of the statistics produced by HEC's Professor Carmine Nappi should provoke a hum or two from Canadians who live outside both Quebec and Ontario.
Those statistics show a protectionist, economic customs union called Canada existing primarily for the benefit of manufacturers in its two central provinces at the expense of consumers in the periphery regions and east and west. They also show a country whose outer regions are more concerned with international than interprovincial or interregional commerce-and which have, in fact, interregion-
Customs Tariff
al trade deficits while only the two central provinces have interregional trade surpluses.
Not just Quebecers might ask why are we all here.
The article goes on to mention some of the arguments and statistics centering around regional concerns. For example:
-British Columbia, with its back to the country, 83.9 per cent of the value of shipments is related to international sales and only 16.1 per cent to sales in the rest of Canada ... Nearly 45 per cent of all B.C. manufacturing jobs are related to foreign sales-far higher than in any other region. Another 42 per cent less than 14 per cent are related to interregional trade.
I believe that puts the discussion in perspective, and if any hon. members wonder why there is disenchantment in the regions of Canada about the trade policies of our country, all they need to do is read this report by an organization which ought to be considered to have some objectivity since it comes from the province of Quebec and is interested in the subject of unity within this country.
I want to cite two examples in support of this point of view.
I have a constituent, in the broad sense of the word, who is concerned about the customs tariff policy of this government and the protectionism which centres around industry in Ontario. I refer to a company known as James Piano and Organ Limited of Vancouver. Part of the company's letter to me reads as follows:
We understand the background is simply that a very minor organ manufacturer in the Toronto area has initiated this action to protect the very large market. It is a fact that for him to qualify for this action he must of necessity produce at least 10 per cent of the goods consumed in this church market. This of course is impossible and on this basis alone the decision should be reversed.
The fact is that at one time the Allen digital computer organ was brought into the country duty-free because it cannot be manufactured in Canada. It cannot be manufactured here for two reasons. First, it is protected by copyright. As a matter of fact, Allen won a $3.5 million lawsuit over its copyright, so that ought to be evidence enough that it cannot be made in Canada. Second, no company in Canada is equipped to build such an organ. While this organ was at one time allowed to come into this country duty free, after objections from Ontario the government slapped a customs tariff on it.
Because of that tariff, if a church or entertainer were to buy that organ, it would cost $2,000 to $3,000 extra to import. Why? Because of two companies in Ontario, one called Classic Organ Company in Markham, Ontario, and another, the Shaw Organ Company of Burlington, Ontario. It so happens that neither of these companies even manufacture organs. All they do is buy up used organs, reconstruct them, refurbish them and refinish their cabinets. They are doing a good service. Nobody is objecting to the work they are doing. I think they are performing a very necessary service, but the fact is that they are not in the business of competing with the Allen digital computer organ. All of a sudden this government decided those two companies should be protected by a heavy tariff which costs churches and entertainers an extra $2,000 or $3,000. That is like killing an ant with a steamroller.
If it is the object of this government to protect jobs in Ontario, it seems to me that it is going at it the wrong way,
6876

June 29, 1978
Customs Tariff
because these two companies each employ two people. To protect the jobs of from four to six people the government has reversed its previous policy and is now asking churches and entertainers to pay an extra $2,000 or $3,000 to import this one particular organ which cannot, by law or because of the nature of the industry in Canada, even be manufactured here.
I think that is a classic case of overkill. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) is here now. I hope he will take this under advisement, and that I have an opportunity during committee of the whole stage to make further representations on this matter. 1 will be asking him to reconsider the policy of his department and to withdraw that duty on these organs.
I am also concerned about the plastics industry in Canada. The plastics industry is the third largest employer in our manufacturing sector. Some 45,000 people are employed in the plastics industry, and I see nothing in Bill C-48 which does anything to enhance that industry. I am not asking for high protection barriers. I think we have to examine that policy very carefully. However, I would like to see some way of ensuring that this industry will enjoy prosperity while at the same time not making consumers pay extra for its products. The industry has taken the time and the trouble to bring some policy recommendations to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner). It did this some time ago in the hope that the minister would bring in policies to help the plastics industry. The subject of trade should be germane to this debate.
I note that that industry feels that the government should, and I quote:
Recognize and negotiate a reduction in non-tariff barriers to export trade from Canada; such as, border harassment by customs officials.
The matter of non-tariff barriers is a matter of increasing concern to small industries and small business people in Canada. I think the government should consider that very seriously.
I notice that it is approaching five o'clock. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche) is anxious to proceed with his private member's bill, so I would like now to call it five o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott)-Anti-Dumping Tribunal-Appointment of new chairman; the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert)- Manpower-Employment of immigrants; the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez)-Post Office-Suggested reduction of employees.
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, private bills, notices of motions (papers), and public bills.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member on a point of order.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, it seems there is unanimous consent to proceed this evening with consideration of Bill C-236, in the name of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche)-

I want to take this opportunity to thank the hon. member very much for the consent he gave to the House last Friday so that we could adjourn at two o'clock and celebrate St. Jean Baptiste day. That is why today he has the consent of this House to proceed with his bill.

[ Translation]


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that they agreed to join the House of Commons to form a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to consider and report on subjects concerning the constitution of the Senate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Does the House unanimously agree to waive notices of motions for the production of papers?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Does the House unanimously agree to stand all bills preceding Bill C-236?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

June 29, 1978



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona) moved: that Bill C-236, to amend the Criminal Code (abortion and the unborn infant), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, my purpose in presenting this bill to parliament is to advance sincerely a solution to the abortion dilemma today. I am proposing a way to protect the rights of the unborn child when a therapeutic committee is considering an application for an abortion. It is not my intention to fan the flames of emotion in this most emotional and difficult subject. Rather, I offer my bill as a reasonable and constructive approach to the growing desire on all sides of the House to find a way to limit abortions to the proper application of the Criminal Code which permits abortions when a mother's life or health is endangered.
To put my bill in its proper context, we must look at how our present dilemma has developed. It is surely too much to hold parliamentarians responsible for the desensitivity to life that we see in the world condition today. But it is not asking too much to have us consider here-in the highest court in the land-the basic nature of man. This, in fact, is history's most recurrent debate. But it now has a new urgency because of scientific developments, unsuspected a generation ago, that enable us to choose life or death. These developments are hastening the erosion of a traditional ethic which placed great emphasis on the intrinsic worth and equal value of every human life, regardless of its stage of condition; and substituting a new ethic based on utilitarianism.
Deep problems of public morality have been opened up by the scientists. It is not only theologians and behaviourists who must respond, but also those who make the laws that will themselves reflect the prevailing values. The question is not whether values are going to determine the implementation of scientific development but which values-or whose values.
We now have biochemical knowledge about the human mind and new drugs and techniques for producing profound changes in the human personality. Psychologists and behaviourists are leading us into a world in which human beings can be moulded, manipulated, and virtually programmed to produce a computerized result. The skills of basic medicine itself are now so sophisticated that talk of "putting together" a human being using the parts of others is not science fiction.
The results are marvellous: children with physical defects are now saved from what formerly would have been certain death.
Criminal Code
The results are baffling: the aging clocks in the body will be able to be controlled, adding many years to longevity and thereby changing the complexion of society.
The results are evil: the desire for human perfection has produced a mentality that would do away with life that cannot measure up to arbitrary standards.
In short, medicine and science have raced into the age of discontinuity. Ethics and the law straggle behind. Nothing is clear. We spend millions on medical research to cure fatal diseases, and pass laws that permit the destruction of unborn children.
Yet, at the root of our social and legal system is the shared conviction that each human life has a unique value that cannot be measured.
Only in the past decade or two has there been a countermovement against the accepted belief that a human life has a unique value. Those who advocate abortion on demand are prepared to refuse the life of the unborn child legal recognition and to have it disposed of, because it is immature. Their attitude reflects a disturbing hostility and callousness toward the weak and helpless. This mentality does not stop at excluding the unborn from the human family. Increasing numbers are proposing that the senile, the incurably ill, and the deformed should be able to be killed with or without their permission.
The position that our law takes on abortion indicates the position it will take on euthanasia, genetic engineering, cloning, and all of the different human life problems facing our society in the years ahead. Those who argue for the unborn child's right to life are arguing not only for the unborn child but for the civil right to life of every human being including the mentally ill, the aged, the genetically incompetent. If the law abandons the protection of the civil rights of the innocent child in the womb, it will one day abandon its protection of the civil right to life of the mentally incompetent, the senile, and the hopelessly ill.
Supporters of abortion often argue that the baby in the womb is not a human but merely a piece of tissue attached to the mother. If there were any scientific doubt of the humanity of the unborn-which there is not-surely the burden of proof would rest with those who would deny the humanity of the unborn. Even if there were doubt, it would have to be acknowledged that the wisest, most prudent policy would be to give the benefit of the doubt to those whose humanity is questioned.
Actually the development of the individual in the womb is extremely rapid. The heart begins beating within 21 days of conception; blood vessels and circulating blood, a backbone, skeletal system and brainwaves are traceable by 43 days; then over the next few weeks rudimentary organs, liver, kidneys and digestive tract, arms and legs, fingers and toes, eyes, ears and mouth are formed. At the very moment of fertilization all the unique genetic characteristics are determined: eye, skin and hair colouring, height and bone structure, intellectual potential and inherited emotional makeup. From the time of conception 46 chromosomes are present, 23 from each parent. This is the
80045-68%

June 29, 1978
Criminal Code
chromosomal development defined by biologists as that of a normal human being. This small individual requires only nutrition and normal conditions in order to develop in the full pattern of human life.
That there is rampant abuse of Canada's abortion law seems to me indisputable. In 1969 the Criminal Code was amended in an omnibus bill. Section 251 permitted an accredited hospital therapeutic abortion committee to allow an abortion when the continuation of a woman's pregnancy "would be likely to endanger her life or health". It is very clear from the debates in parliament, and from the reasons given by the government on introducing the bill, that the new law was meant to be restrictive, to be applied when there were genuine cases of medical need.
As an editor, I wrote at the time that the new law was so loosely written that it would open the door to abortion on demand. But in the climate of 1969, a time of questioning of old values, the abortion section of the omnibus bill passed easily.
What happened? In 1970, the year after the new law was passed, there were 11,152 recorded abortions in Canada. By 1976 the number had jumped to 54,536, resulting in an abortion rate of 14.9 per cent. In that seven year period, there were 276,112 abortions in Canada. I ask you to take note of that figure-more than an quarter of a million abortions in Canada since the present law came into effect. With shame and sadness I note that in certain hospitals today the number of abortions now equals or exceeds the number of live births.
It is ludicrous to suggest that the state of health of pregnant women in Canada was five times worse in 1976 than in 1970. Yet there were five times as many abotions. The law, strictly interpreted, permits abortions only when the mother's life or health is endangered. It is straining credibility to suggest that it is more dangerous to be pregnant in the three richest provinces of British Columbia, Ontario, and Alberta where the abortion rate is far higher than in any other province.
Obviously the interpretation of the word "health" is so wide as to throw the law into disrepute. Abortions are being performed because a growing number of women are deciding that they do not want to carry their child to term. An unwanted pregnancy has been interpreted by many hospital abortion committees as a threat to health. Thus, abortion in these hospitals has become a necessary medical service available on demand.
As the abortion rate escalates, abortion becomes more socially acceptable and even accepted. Thus an operation legalized, because there are genuine cases of conflict of rights between an unborn child and its seriously ill mother, has been seized upon by popular morality for social advancement. The more widespread the practice becomes, the more tolerant society becomes. This is a clear reflection of the lack of public commitment to human life as the highest priority.
Yet there is a strong and growing movement in Canada that wants the abortion spiral stopped. Who can forget that day

just over three years ago when the Alliance for Life brought to parliament a petition with one million signatures of Canadians urging a tightening of the abortion law? It was the largest petition ever presented to parliament.
The only response of the government was to set up the Badgley committee to enquire into the administration of the law. It was a foregone conclusion that the committee would find inequitable administration, since only 258 of Canada's 783 hospitals have abortion committees. What ought to have been highlighted are the continuing abuses of the law. Badgley found that most women who had abortions in Canadian hospitals were considered by their physicians to be in good physical health. As for the mental health of the women being in jeopardy, a continuing travesty of justice is occurring. The Badgley report at page 212 reads as follows:
Many physicians whom the committee met on its visits to hospitals across Canada openly acknowledged that their diagnoses for mental health were given for purposes of expediency and they could not be considered as a valid assessment of an abortion patient's state of mental health.
This situation is deeply disturbing. We have a law in place to protect women in cases of serious medical risk to pregnancy, yet the vast majority of abortions being performed are attempts to cope with social problems. In many cases the social problem is serious, but abortion is not the way to deal with it because abortion harms everyone involved and brutalizes society.
The Badgley report was presented to parliament. Thereupon the federal government tossed the ball to the provinces, which have the responsibility of administering the Criminal Code. It urged the province to set up women's clinics to counsel on a full range of health problems, including abortion. More services for women and families, including day care, certainly are needed. I urge the federal and provincial governments to put family well-being at the centre of their policies. Unfortunately, under the guise of making social services more equitable across Canada, the government is widening indirectly the access to abortions. Services by themselves are an insufficient answer to what is essentially a matter of law.
Abortion is not a private matter. The destruction of human life, even incipient or developing human life in the womb, can never be considered a private matter under our law. Abortion is nothing less than a question of civil rights. The unborn child has a civil right to life, and it is the duty of the state to protect the unborn child's civil rights.
What should now be done? The answer is found by going back to the Canadian Bill of Rights which was passed in 1960, wherein it reads:
In Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely (a) the right of the individual to life ...
The bill of rights continues:
-there shall be no cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, and no person shall be denied his rights without a fair hearing.
On the question of who is a person, the World Health Organization of the United Nations in 1948 urged respect for


June 29, 1978

human life "from the moment of conception". In 1959 the United Nations adopted the Declaration of the Rights of the Child based on the following preamble:
Whereas the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth ...
Let me underline that closing clause, "before as well as after birth".
Either we are serious about those declarations or we are not. In my mind, Section 251 of the Criminal Code simply is incompatible with the Canadian Bill of Rights. At the very least it should be amended to insist medical proof be established that the mother's life seriously is endangered before permission for abortion is given. When a therapeutic abortion committee considers an application for abortion, there should be a legally appointed guardian present to represent the rights of the unborn child. By instituting due process, the decision would not be left to doctors alone. In addition, the decisions of the abortion committee should be subject to federal review.
In essence, that is what my bill proposes. I believe there is a consensus in this House that abortions be limited to cases where there is a genuine health need. In no way does my bill deprive a woman of an abortion where there is a conflict of rights between her life and the child's. In fact, civil rights in our country would be improved by a device which weights the interests of the unborn infant alongside those of the mother.
The essence of the bill provides a spokesman for the infant's rights at a therapeutic abortion committee hearing. That spokesman could be the father of the child, if he is cohabiting with the mother; the parent or guardian of the mother, if she is under the age of 16; or the official guardian. The consent of the defender, who would in most cases be the official guardian, would be required before an abortion certificate could be issued. The defender could withhold consent by making out an affidavit affirming that he believes in good faith the danger to the health of the mother is not sufficiently grave as to warrant an abortion. Provision is made for an immediate appeal to a federal court which could allow the abortion, if the court finds the danger to health sufficiently grave.
I urge hon. members to give favourable consideration to this bill, or at the very least to have its subject matter sent to an appropriate committee for study. My bill is moderate, firm, and corrective in nature. It appeals to all fair-minded people and establishes a common ground on an issue which customarily divides us. It enhances civil rights and extends the progress of our civilization. Finally, as we prepare for the International Year of the Child in 1979, there can be no finer action by this parliament than a simple, clear measure of law aimed at protecting the most defenceless of all children, the unborn.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the
Criminal Code
hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche), through his private member's bill, an act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion and the unborn infant) has brought before the House of Commons a very important matter. As the hon. member knows, as do other hon. members, abortion is a very controversial matter. As the hon. member has said, it is a very emotional subject as well. In any event, it is my view, and I am sure that of others, that the present Criminal Code provisions should at least prevail. I would suggest to the hon. member that it is somewhat unfair to lump euthanasia, mental incompetence, senility and mortal illness together with abortion. They are all separate matters, and the hon. member is clouding the issue when he does that.
We know there are some abuses in respect of abortion laws, and this is something that definitely must be corrected. As the hon. member knows, it is not government policy to have abortion on demand, even though that may be the way it appears to the hon. member.
There have been many more abortions in the past few years.
I would suggest to the hon. member that certainly the increase in part at least is the result of our permissive society and not because of the present law. In fact, the increase may be in spite of it. The hon. member has, however, made very serious representations which I know will receive every consideration.
Some background to the present perspective of the government in regard to abortion may be of interest to hon. members. It was in 1969 that parliament passed the omnibus justice bill, legislation which included an amendment to the Criminal Code to provide therapeutic abortion if, in the opinion of a hospital therapeutic committee, the health of the mother was at risk. This provision followed prolonged discussion in the standing committees of this House and representations from a very great number of professional and non-governmental organizations concerned with adapting Canadian law to Canadian contemporary circumstances. Hon. members should remember that the 1969 provision did not and does not require the setting up of therapeutic abortion committees in a hospital, it merely sets down a procedure in the instance the option is taken up.
It is useful to recall, as well, the passage in 1969 of what some hon. members called the "omnibus health bill". Included in this legislation, markedly less comprehensive than its counterpart omnibus justice bill, was a provision removing the restrictions on the sale of, and dissemination of information about birth control and family planning products. Subsequent amendment to the Food and Drugs Act and the Food and Drug Regulations permitted advertising to the general public and the sale of contraceptive drugs and contraceptive devices, excepting drugs which would be supplied only on prescription, and intrauterine devices which required medical administration. It is upon the foundation of these 1969 initiatives, the abortion provision in the omnibus justice bill and the family planning provision of the omnibus health bill, that the policy of the Government of Canada now rests.
In consideration of representations from many professional and non-governmental organizations, the government decided

June 29, 1978
Criminal Code
in 1975 to appoint the Committee on the Operation of the Abortion Law, an expert panel, with Dr. Robin F. Badgley as its chairman. We should note the terms of reference of this committee which are "to conduct a study to determine whether the procedure provided in the Criminal Code for obtaining therapeutic abortions is operating equitably across Canada".
The committee embarked on a wide ranging and comprehensive examination of its task, relying for its conclusions on, among other sources, hospital site visits, a national hospital survey, a survey of hospital staff, a national physician survey, a national population survey, and a study of out of country abortion services which have been utilized by some Canadian women. The report and its comprehensive information base are very impressive; hon. members should examine the report very carefully in light of the interest and concern expressed about the present abortion law, both in the hon. member for Edmon-ton-Strathcona's bill now before the House and by the public at large.
The findings of the Badgley committee merit consideration by all members of this House. Let me quote three of the major findings from the summary of the report prepared by the committee as follows:
No consensus for major changes in the law. Most Canadians were neither in favour of removing abortion from the Criminal Code nor of refusing therapeutic abortions under any circumstances. Their complaint was with the way the law was working.
Law not operating equitably. The procedure provided in the abortion law for obtaining therapeutic abortions is not operating equitably across Canada. There are sharp disparities in the distribution and accessibility of therapeutic abortion services and unreasonable pressure on some physicians and hospitals. The burden of the inequitable operation of the abortion law tends to fall on women who are less well educated, who have lower incomes, and who live in smaller centres or rural areas with no direct access to hospitals that provide abortion services.
Abortion law itself not in equitable. The 1969 amendment to the abortion law resulted in a sharp reduction in illegal abortions. In addition, there was substantial reduction in deaths resulting from attempted self-induced or other illegal abortions. Provincial regulations and the practices of hospitals and the medical profession rather than the abortion law itself have lead to the inequities in its operation. The law is specific in setting out the procedure to be followed to obtain a therapeutic abortion and its definition of guidelines is broad enough to accommodate the circumstances under which it might be considered necessary to obtain an induced abortion.
In light of these and other findings of the Badgley committee the government has, in this House and elsewhere, stated its present policy in unequivocal terms. We on this side are not prepared to change the law at the present time. As the report makes clear, the major problems at present are not with the existing law but rather with its application by the provinces and the hospitals. Consonant with this position, discussions about equitable operation of the law took place at the federal-provincial conference of ministers of health last June. Some provinces indicated that they had established study groups to review this very question.
It should also be clear that the government, like the Badgley committee, can detect no consensus on proposed changes to the present Criminal Code provisions on abortion. Consonant with this realization, the government is willing and able to assist the provinces to become more active in establishing and nurturing effective family planning and family life education programs,

to the end that recourse to the provisions of the Criminal Code will be minimized. The findings of Badgley should alert us, if no one else, to the needs and possibilities in the area of preventive governmental action: family planning, family life education, and sex education.
The Department of National Health and Welfare has been active in the area of family planning since 1970, and it is hoped resources will allow us to continue to present scale of activities. Since receipt of the Badgley report, and following upon last June's conference of health ministers, officials of the department have held discussions with representatives of the professional associations of doctors, nurses, social workers, pharmacists and teachers. These representatives have accepted the task of informing their colleagues on needs and possibilities for the training of health, education and welfare professionals in the preventive sphere.
Also recently, the family planning division of the Department of National Health and Welfare has granted subsidies for training sessions in family planning to the national voluntary associations active in this area of preventive health and welfare. In addition, the department's active information program directed to the public at large has increased its output of publications both in bulk quantities to associations and in response to individual requests.
The federal government has shown concern for the wellbeing of Canadian families and, in particular, children, by taking responsibility for a variety of social and economic programs including family allowances, unemployment insurance, survivor's benefits, veteran's benefits, services to native people, and a number of cost-shared programs with the provinces in the areas of health and welfare services. I am sure those are well known to the hon. member.
With reference to the involvment of the Department of National Health and Welfare, and as illustration of this concern, the Canada Assistance Plan Act, introduced in 1966, guaranteed an income support measure for persons in need, and a range of welfare services to those in need. One objective of the plan is to provide families with a variety of services such as personal counselling, including marriage and family counselling, and community development in order to stabilize and support them as a unit.
Federal contributions under the Canada Assistance Plan for welfare services totalled $168 million in 1976-77. An additional $65 million was contributed to child welfare costs. Over the years the largest proportion of these funds went toward the cost of maintaining persons including children in homes for special care; the next largest budget item being child welfare. The 1976-77 estimates approved by parliament have committed $3.3 million for family allowances and an additional $2 million for family assistance.
As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the provinces have recently been offered a block financing arrangement for social services in lieu of the conditional shared cost approach associated with the social services bill tabled on June 20. The block financing
June 29, 1978

approach has been adopted and the provinces will have more latitude in deciding upon those services which may be funded with the assistance of the federal contribution. However, federal legislation, irrespective of which financial approach is adopted, will clearly specify that federal funds are intended to improve services to certain target groups in order to integrate them into the broader community. Under both financial approaches it will be the prerogative of the provinces to establish the criteria for eligibility as well as for the specific services which will actually be provided.
One of the specific purposes of increased federal financing would be to encourage expansion of children's services in Canada. For example, the new financing arrangement compared to the Canada Assistance Plan will include funds to share in the provincial costs of preventive and developmental services for children.
Preventive services are intended for both parents and children, to support parents in their parenting role, to help children who are at risk because they are living in a problematic situation creating the circumstances that could lead to a state of neglect or the need for protection.
Developmental services, on the other hand, are intended to assist parents who have children with extraordinary needs and lack the ability to function normally within their homes, schools and/or communities. Their needs cannot be reasonably met by their own families, and they may be living in or outside their own homes. Children with extraordinary needs are intended to include children such as the hyperactive child, and acting-out child, the withdrawn and antisocial child, the autistic child, the emotionally disturbed and socially retarded child, the handicapped, mentally retarded and socially disadvantaged child, the preschool child with learning disabilities, the disabled and handicapped children who have been rehabilitated to their maximum potential but still have a continuing need for residential care, and other children experiencing serious difficulty in functioning normally.
There are many other services under the new legislation that have an effect on the lives of children including day care services, rehabilitation services and services to communities.
The department is also involved in quality prenatal and infant care, it encourages poison control centres and monitors birth defects across Canada. A number of research projects have been supported and extensive information has been provided free of charge to the public at large. Currently, we are supporting projects ranging from research into genetics to evaluating the impact of psychiatric consultation on the education of emotionally disturbed children.
The department established in October 1975 the adoption desk at the request of the provinces which facilitates the placement of children across provincial boundaries through a central registry of children and potential adoptive parents. The desk also provides to the provinces a co-ordination and liaison service in international adoptions. To date 100 children have been placed interprovincially through the desk. Approximately 75 international adoptions are currently being co-ordinated by the desk.
Criminal Code
The department also has an interest in the area of preventing child abuse and neglect. I am sure that hon. members are aware that the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs published its report to the House of Commons on child abuse and neglect in 1976. As a result of the findings of the committee, and as an illustration of its concern for the problems of child abuse and neglect, the department has undertaken a number of activities, including the insertion of a flyer on the subject of child abuse and neglect in the March 1977 family allowances cheques, and has purchased a number of audio-visual materials on child abuse which are co-sponsored in a series with the Challenge for Change program of the National Film Board of Canada and the Tree Foundation of Canada.
There is one more federal activity I would like to discuss today, the forthcoming Year of the Child slated for 1979. Canada participated in the consensus reached at the United Nations to establish a year set aside for children so that countries might focus on their own children and examine their status. The federal government has contributed $100,000 toward the maintaining of a secretariat at the United Nations for this purpose.
In recent years, with the increasing sensitization of the needs of women and working mothers in particular, a number of improvements were implemented. A major change was the granting of paid maternity leave, up to 15 weeks under the unemployment insurance program. Claimants must have 20 or more weeks of insured employment in the preceding year. The benefits are the same as for regular unemployment benefits.
A second important support to parents are day care services. In Canada, these are funded as a welfare service under the Canada Assistance Plan Act for persons in need. The federal government reimburses up to 50 per cent of the costs to the provinces of providing welfare services. The cost-sharing provisions for day care services have been made more generous than for some other welfare services.
The programs are designed to ensure that all residents of Canada have access to needed medical and hospital care on a prepaid basis. The Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Program, which started in 1958, has mandatory in-patient care as well as elective out-patient services, which vary somewhat from province to province. At this time, all provinces and the two territories are participating in the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Program.
Other services important to the family as a whole are health services and adequate housing. Adequate housing plays a most important part in the well-being of Canadians, particularly children. Under the National Housing Act the federal government promotes construction of new houses, repair and modernization of existing dwellings and improvement of Canadian housing and living conditions. The prime thrust of the federal legislation is to provide adequate accommodation for citizens on fixed or limited incomes.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member during private members'

June 29, 1978
Criminal Code
hour, but I find it very difficult, as I believe many other members do, to relate what he is saying to Bill C-236 which is before the House. Surely the rule of relevancy has to apply and I would ask Your Honour to so rule.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: When the hon. parliamentary secretary resumes his speech I would ask him to relate his remarks to Bill C-236.


William Kenneth Robinson: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I think my remarks are relevant. I do not have to refute everything the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona has stated. I am merely adding to his remarks and I think mine are relevant. In any event I was just finishing.
The fact remains that it is our belief that couples should have free access to information and services to enable them to have the children they want when they want them. The government's interest in supporting families on the one hand, and its recognition that couples have the right to decide the size of their families on the other, are seen as complementary policies that have as their end product the maintenance of a healthy society.


Douglas Roche: I rise on point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask whether the hon. parliamentary secretary will accept a question.


William Kenneth Robinson: Certainly.


Douglas Roche: I should like to ask the hon. member who has just given the government position on abortions whether he is prepared to recommend that the subject matter of Bill C-236 be sent to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


William Kenneth Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have the authority to make such a recommendation to this House at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Aren't you a member of parliament?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp).


Mr. Epp:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) preceded me on the list of speakers on second reading of this bill. I wonder if Your Honour would care to recognize him before recognizing me.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen).


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) taking the floor. He and I are of one spirit in this matter with the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche).
I want to begin by complimenting the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona for bringing this measure forward. It is a subject that easily becomes very shrill and strident. He is
[Mr. McGrath.)
seeking a solution to a problem that concerns a great many Canadians, one which I believe has been the subject of great abuse on both sides of the argument. I want to compliment him on his initiative.
There are two problems with the whole subject of abortion, abortion committees and abortion clinics. The first is that we ask abortion committees in our hospitals to make decisons that fundamentally they are not trained to make. These people are specialists. They may be trained gynecologists or obstetricians, the best in their field, but they are not necessarily trained to make some the non-technical decisions that frequently have to be made.
I might add parenthetically that, if we want to talk about therapeutic abortions and bring them into the perspective of statistics that are current nowadays, last year, for example, there were 60,000 therapeutic abortions. I cannot imagine that there are 60,000 seriously ill women walking around this country. And when we look at the 12,000 teenage abortions, we are thinking of 12,000 seriously ill teenagers walking around. Can we seriously consider that all of these have been therapeutic abortions? This simply supports the point that we are asking committees to make decisions that are outside their expertise. I am not taking away from their brilliance or their competence in their area. I am saying that the university medical schools are not training our doctors, gynecologists and specialists to ask questions relative to this whole area. The difficult questions are not ones of technique; rather the difficult questions of life today are questions of morality and ethics.
I would now like to illustrate another point. Some months ago I was travelling home on a plane. I sat beside a gentleman and soon after engaging in conversation with him I learned he was a brilliant man in the field of economics. So I am illustrating my point from two other disciplines. This gentleman had received his Ph.D. in economics from the University of Chicago. He had been a consultant in finance in some of the highest offices in that area. He has consulting offices in Vancouver, Ottawa and in the Middle East and obviously he is a very proficient person in his field. He said to me "You know, when it comes to the difficult questions in life, I have to turn to the church."
This was simply illustrating the point that the technical questions are not necessarily the difficult ones in life. The really difficult ones are those on ethics and morality. As I said before, I am not taking away from the brilliance or the expertise of the people who are sitting on the abortion committees. I am saying that they have been trained in an area which is not within their expertise.
We are moving in our society into a world of specialization, and specialization by definition means abstraction. As soon as one moves into the area of abstraction one necessarily by definition moves away from the area of universality. How can a person who abstracts be a specialist and be a universalist at
June 29, 1978

the same time? That is beyond me. We are asking these Canadians to deal with problems that are very difficult.
In this last generation we have moved in an area of technology that has been totally anticipatory. By our technology we have put people in space and on the moon. We have moved them into an area where it is impossible to experience what these people would have to go through as they moved out in space. All of this has to be anticipated by science and technology, taking into account all the physical laws that would be brought into play. We have done this without flaw. These are not problems of technology. We have the technology. The questions we have to ask are the moral and ethical ones.
When we move into the area of rationalism, inevitably we move into a field that violates human rights. I will illustrate that point by reading a letter from a parent who wrote to me from Langley, British Columbia. If we take a totally rational view of abortion, we bring into play such things as cost, economics, statistics and population growth. These are all statistical, rational questions. But there are some other questions that have to be asked. This father wrote to me as follows:
I had contact with the executive secretary of... in fall, 1975. It was in connection with the pregnancy of my 17 year old daughter who very much wanted an abortion. She was able to obtain it by attending a ... clinic in North Vancouver who referred her to a gynecologist who performed in the Vancouver General, less than two weeks after the initial contact at the clinic. It is my view that my daughter was able to obtain an abortion simply because she wanted it. The abortion committee at VGH was a rubber stamp of the gynecologist's recommendation and no counselling was provided for this teenager regarding the drastic action she was taking aginst the new life inside her, either at the. .. Clinic nor at the VGH nor by the gynecologist.
The interview I had with the ... secretary was one of many I had with professionals and officials in the health & welfare community in Vancouver. I wanted the answer to the question "Why was it necessary to end the life of this fetus?" Of course I was told I had no right to interfere. One of the many to tell me this was the woman at... I brought up the matter of counselling and she gave me a very nice talk on what should have been said to her. I informed her my daughter told me no one had talked to her about anything except the arrangements, times, places etc., and about her condition-number of weeks of pregnancy, etc. The woman said it was strictly between this girl of minor years and her doctor. She then attempted to inquire about my religion. Apparently, from her attitude I think she assumed I was Roman Catholic. I told her I would not tell her my religion but that I wasn't R.C.
I would say further that the people who were so interested in this girl and who supported her in this unnatural and inhuman act, when it was done, disappeared completely from her view and have never inquired of her wellbeing since. They ought to know her troubles were not solved by the "operation".
Here is a case where the father of a teenage girl had his legitimate legal rights overruled by somebody who took a totally rational approach to this very human problem. I illustrate further that rationalism becomes totally irrational. In the report of an agency that contacted all members of parliament on this subject was a quotation from the Badgley report. In this agency's report it said:
The report also estimated that in 1974 Canadians spent 58 cents per capita on the costs of therapeutic abortions against $1.61 for normal childbirths and 24 cents earmarked for federal and provincial family planning programs.
I wonder if we are prepared as a people to regard this issue in dollars and cents terms and to highlight rationality of the whole approach. I put that in juxtaposition to the report I read in Time magazine of this week entitled "Fishy Reprieve-The
Criminal Code
snail darter wins-for now". This article deals with the supreme court decision in the United States. I quote:
Last week the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 in favor of the snail darter's right to life.
In this case there are 10,000 three-inch fish who live in the reservoir area of a dam. They have been given the right to life by the Supreme Court decision. This dam costing $116 million woud have provided sustenance for thousands of people throughout its irrigation and drainage area. This project was shelved because of 10,000 three-inch fish. The report goes on to say:
Indeed, the decision could affect at least eleven other projects, including the proposed $690 million Dickey-Lincoln Dam in Maine, which would endanger the Furbish lousewort, a rare plant that resembles the snapdragon.
It seems to me that this country is getting completely out of whack. When we consider in dollars and cents terms that a therapeutic abortion and information about therapeutic abortions costs only 58 cents per capita whereas a live birth costs $1.61, I cannot help but believe we are getting into a world of absurdity with human life being determined in that sense.
I commend the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona for looking for an answer to this problem which affects the morality of all of us. There were 60,000 abortions performed last year and the projection is for an equal number this year. I compliment the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona on looking for a solution to provide for the protection of human life of the yet unborn child.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, may I thank you or your indulgence previously when you recognized the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen). I will be very brief. I commend the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche) and the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock for their contributions.
I had an opportunity at previous times in this House to speak on this issue. Those of us in this House who believe so deeply in the issue of the right to life have been silent too long. Hopefully we will speak out more boldly in this forum and every other forum available to us.
I have again read the debate of 1969, the debate on the change to the Criminal Code in the omnibus bill. The spirit that prevailed was that abortions could be granted where the health or life of the mother was seriously in danger. No member of this House, some nine years later, can argue that 60,000 therapeutic abortions fits the definition of 1969 and the law passed by this House at that time.
The fact remains that abortions in many areas have become abortions on demand. Why? I shudder to think that in our society, with the economic well-being that we have, that we can suddenly trundle out the argument that, economically speaking, the unwanted child will be such an economic drain on the family that the child's life must be destroyed.
All of us have had experience where people in much poorer circumstances than the average person today took children

June 29, 1978
Criminal Code
who were not their own, adopted them and made them their own. Today they are citizens. While there were economic hardships, the joy of helping someone along the path of life surely outweighs any decision to destroy life. Therefore, the economic argument just is not valid. I do not see how any person in this House can argue the economic concept.
The hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) argued that we should not tie in abortions in the large numbers which we see in our society today with social engineering, the removal of the aged and the infirm. Why is he so sure that society that can rationalize removing the life of the unborn person, having determined it has the right to remove that life, will never make the decision to remove life at the other end of the age spectrum? How can he make the assertion that that will not happen?
What it comes down to is that it is a moral issue. If we believe that life is sacred and comes from God, how come the state has the right through its agents, members of parliament, to determine that we can remove that sacred life? I ask the hon. member how he can guarantee that, in a society which is recklessly hurtling down the immoral road, life will not become so cheap that it will in fact become worthless?
Next year we will have the International Year of the Child in commemoration of the twentieth anniversary of the signing of the Charter of Children's Rights at the United Nations. What greater gift can we make than to re-examine the abortion law and give the hope of life to 60,000 Canadians so that they may not be added to the one quarter million who have died since 1969?
I thank the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona for bringing this topic before the House. More important, 1 plead with the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore to take this question back to his government to see whether they will have the subject matter go to the committee where we can discuss it further.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I will take only one or two minutes so as not to run the risk of talking out this important bill. I willingly add my voice in support of the bill. I compliment and congratulate the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche) on bringing in this bill.
We as a parliament should concern ourselves with the most basic human right of all; that is, the right to life. Last year alone in Canada 60,000 human beings were denied this right through the abuse of the present law. It is inadequate. In my humble opinion, this is nothing short of a national disgrace. We should not base our moral standards in this country on those of any other country of the world. We should establish our own moral standards based upon the Judeo-Christian ethic. There can be no other way to measure the moral standards of a society. I commend the hon. member and urge hon. members to have the subject matter of this bill referred to committee so that it can be studied further.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Savard).


Mr. Paproski:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact there is only one minute remaining, I think you should put the question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. An hon. member stood to be recognized and I recognized him.


Mr. Raymond Savard (Verdun):: Mr. Speaker, I think that legislation on abortion is proposing cumbersome measures on a procedure which appears to me to be within the medical jurisdiction. In view of the restrictions now provided in the Criminal Code, it seems to be unthinkable that in 1977 the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche) is trying to limit the definition of the word health to an absence of physical indisposition whereas we all know that social and familial effects are recognized-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
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. Chretien that Bill C-48, to amend the Customs Tariff and to amend An act to amend the Customs Tariff, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I have some comments to make on this bill. I wrote a letter recently to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) indicating I would have some observations to make. I have received considerable correspondence from people in my constituency who are seeking assistance from the federal government but are not getting any. There seems to be something missing in this bill. Perhaps hon. members will allow me to supply some background.
In 1973, the chief executive officer of a company in Perth, Ontario, known as International Silver was, along with some other entrepreneurs, considering setting up a new company. At that time about five million pairs of scissors were being imported into Canada each year. When I was first given this information I was surprised; I thought the number was greatly
June 29, 1978

exaggerated. What did people use all those scissors for? Yet the statistics are there. Six million pairs of scissors are presently being imported, one million of which are of high quality, made of hot-forged steel, the rest a cold-stamped product, some of them used by children in kindergarten to cut things out. I suppose they break them all the time which is one of the reasons we import so many. Yet despite the size of the home market-every home, every office, every industry uses scissors-never in our history have scissors been manufactured in this country.
In December, 1973 a study was completed by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The tariff on imported scissors was 20 per cent. The department analysed the market and concluded it was a pretty good idea to manufacture scissors in this country. This study showed how much we were bringing in. There was no established domestic market.
The import analysis referred to the 20 per cent tariff. So in January of 1974, a month after they got this information, they were then far enough along the way, and they decided to go ahead. They incorporated the company, and between January of 1974 and March of 1974 they set out to raise capital. They spoke to the Eastern Ontario Development Corporation. With their shareholders they arranged for a line of credit at the banks. I want to emphasize that this is not a fly by night firm. It is not coming in as some of those we have supported under DREE with 20 per cent shareholder equity and so forth. These people arranged for shareholders to commit $450,000. The Eastern Ontario Development Corporation, an agency of the Ontario government, gave them an incentive loan of $497,000. They had a bank line of credit of $300,000. Over $1 million was being committed for the setting up of a plant.
In April of 1974 the building was started. Contracts were let to instal machinery. Things were going along very nicely through April, May and June, when boom, in July of 1974, just at the end of the election campaign of that year, it was announced that the Privy Council had passed Order in Council P.C. 1974-1416. That order in council was actually passed on June 20, 1974, but it was not promulgated in the press and in the Canada Gazette until July of that year. The order in council knocked down the most favoured nation tariff from 20 per cent to 15 per cent, thus allowing Italian, German and Finnish scissors to come in at 15 per cent.
Included at that time was the general preferential tariff for developing and underdeveloped countries. That was introduced as a result of the passage of Bill C-179 in the closing days of the 29th Parliament. I think that bill was passed in March of 1974. The tariff on Brazilian scissors coming into Canada was lowered to zero. In July of that year, just after hearing about this and before production started, the president and general manager of the company, Mr. Christopher, wrote to the government to complain.
Mr. Christopher indicated that a large volume of Brazilian scissors were imported into Canada and that they were made in a factory which is one of the largest scissors manufacturing
Customs Tariff
plants in the world. It has some of the best technology, and it is very efficient. Assistance was requested starting from that time, and I will deal with that later. It was indicated that perhaps for three years that tariff would be helpful until the company got established and got costs down as the plant worked out its wrinkles. Since then it has been drawn down to two years, and there has been correspondence to the effect that it would be desirable to have that tariff back to 20 per cent for two years.
In September of 1974, just about eight weeks after the announcement of the tariff change, the plant was opened, the building was occupied and it was ready for production by January of 1975. The company was writing and pleading what I think is a very reasonable case for a new industry owned by Canadians, using Canadian capital, raw materials and workers, not for a tariff barrier which is more than we have had in the past or anything high, but just the barrier which was there when the report from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce was made in December of 1973.
The report contains some 20 pages. It deals with scissors, shears and trimmers, and at page 7, in section 3, it refers to production. It says that there are no Canadian manufacturers of scissors or shears, that imports can be equated with apparent domestic consumption, that one of the largest purchasers of scissors and shears for its own use is the federal government through the Department of Supply and Services, and that some of the department's foreign suppliers are experiencing difficulty in meeting promised delivery dates.
The report assesses the number of scissors coming into Canada in the year 1972. On page 8 it indicates the quantity to be 5,404,752 scissors. It indicates that in 1968 the number was 4,358,976. The report deals with quantities and dollar values for 1968, 1969, 1970 and 1971 and it ends up with the 12-month figure of 5,404,752 for 1972. At that time there had been a most favoured nation tariff of 20 per cent on scissors and shears, but it was free under the British preferential tariff. However, the company felt that there was no problem because of the quality and type of scissors which were coming from England. They were of the cold-stamped variety, and this company did not want to go into that production. It has never mass produced cold-stamped scissors. It produces high-quality hot-forged scissors, a quality product. The company felt that it could compete with that kind of product.
In July of 1974 the president of International Scissor indicated in a letter that he contacted people in Mexico and they told him that the operation was an extremely large one which produced cutlery, scissors and many other products. This was with reference to the Brazilian company. That company was started by the Germans after World War II under the name Hercules S.A. That company employs about 7,000 people, and it produces cutlery and things of that nature as well as scissors. On page 2 of a letter from Mr. Christopher we find the following:
By breaking out the 15 per cent duty, it shows that a landed cost of $1.63 for a pair of scissors under the present set-up with the 15 per cent duty, 12 per cent sales tax, 40 per cent mark-up on selling price for the importer and a 50 per cent mark-up on the selling price for the retailer would make that pair of scissors go

June 29, 1978
Customs Tariff
from $1.63 to $7.00. Conversely if the duty were removed and the importing price the same, that is $1.63, it would then make the selling price $6.05, so that you can see by removing the duty makes a difference of 95 cents in the selling price.
One must recognize however, that per unit the importer will make less profit, the retailer will make less profit by the very fact that the duty was not there and they certainly take a mark-up on that as well, and I am sure that the consumer will not benefit by the reduction of duty. This money will go into profits for the importer and retailer and all it does is make the imported product look more attractive than what the domestic product would look if we had the 15 per cent duty.
I don't think we're asking too much to have this duty maintained as we most definitely are going to need it, particularly in our start-up years, that is for the next couple of years.
That was a letter of July 15, 1974, urging the continuation of the tariff of 15 per cent, or recognizing it was down to 15 per cent under the most favoured nation tariff.
On January 22, 1975, writing to Mr. J. G. McEntyre, Mr. Christopher writes in part in the third paragraph:
Construction was started in April and concluded in October 1974.
He indicated that they were well along the way when the announcement came in July of 1974. He goes on to write:
When the initial investigation to set up this company was made, the duty on scissors was at that time 20 per cent, however, in mid-1974 changes were made that put severe pressure on this company that we had unfortunately not anticipated. The duty rate was reduced to 15 per cent making our ability to compete with off-shore products that much more difficult and also duty was removed completely on a long list of nations, particularly Brazil.
That country has one of the most advanced and largest scissor producing companies in the world, now they are allowed to send scissors to Canada without duty. Since this product is labour intensive it is easy to understand the difficulty we will encounter from that source.
In the next paragraph he goes on to say:
Obviously we would request any consideration that you could give this company in at least maintaining the existing duty rates until such time as we have had the opportunity of reaching a reasonable degree of efficiency. We also feel that products coming in from Brazil, a country that is in such an advanced state of productive capacity, duty free is certainly very detrimental to our ethics.
They continued with their process, and in March of 1975, writing to Mr. L. Loomer, director of tariffs, Department of Finance, Mr. Christopher said in part in paragraph 2:
In our approach to importers and distributors of scissors in Canada, we are running into virtually the same comments from all.
In the next paragraph, he says they are too high priced in comparison with the low price of the product brought in from off-shore. In the third paragraph of the letter he says:
Again, I wish to stress it is not our intention to endeavour to hide behind tariffs, however, we do recognize the absolute necessity of some form of protection until such time as we can develop this company into a viable operation. For the first time scissors will be made in Canada from Canadian raw materials, by Canadian workmen, using Canadian capital.
A copy of the letter was sent to the following officials: R. E. Foster, W. H. Chander, J. H. O'Connell, J. Stewart, and R. Catellier. At that time they enclosed an indication of what was happening in the scissor market. Whereas in the government import analysis done in December of 1973, Brazil was not included because that country was not a major factor at that time, the analysis shows that between 1969 and 1974, Brazil

had increased its exports from 119,000 pairs to 262,000 pairs, an over 100 per cent increase. Italy, which has a cheaper model, has increased its exports from 639,000 pairs to 1,040,000 pairs.
In a memo dated May 6, 1975 it is pointed out that Brazil has the largest and most up to date manufacturing industry of scissors in the world. It reads:
A company called Zivi was formed by German scissor technicians after the war,
presumed to be Henckels of Solingen, however, there is no proof of any degree of ownership . . . distributed in Canada by Henckels (Canada) of Toronto.
International Scissor Limited goes on to state in the memo:
Quality of Brazil is very good. Quality of Italy is poor and they do not have a good reputation in the trade.
Apparently they have difficulties meeting some of their commitment dates, and their scissors are not as good. The memo goes on to read:
German scissors are comparable in quality and price to Canadian scissors. England produces more "cold formed" scissors and delivery of quality scissors from England is poor.
This was their assessment of the market at the time. They go on to say:
Singer Company which is probably the largest sales organization of scissors in Canada sell Henckels manufactured in Brazil. We have just been informed that Eaton's of Canada will in future feature only scissors purchased from Henckels of Canada imported from Brazil.
On May 14, 1975 International Scissor Limited received a letter from an importer named Lamplough Cutlery Ltd., in Montreal, which says the following in part in the second paragraph:
The idea of setting up manufacturing facilities to provide scissors in Canada is commendable. It is a household product used in every household in Canada as well as every office and industry.
In the third paragraph they say:
We intend to support your entry into the Canadian market to the fullest extent. As I pointed out to you this will be difficult as a result of the federal government decision in July of 1974 to reduce the tariff from 20 to 15 per cent and also to remove the duty completely from a long list of "Emerging Nations"...
The laid down cost of scissors from Brazil, without duty, is much lower than that from Italy with 15 per cent duty and the quality is superior.
They go on to say a little farther down in the paragraph:
I am sure you can see the unfair competitive position you are being forced into.
The last three paragraphs in that letter bear reading. They read as follows:
A lower duty structure than that which obtained when there was no scissor manufacturing facility in this country appears illogical. The free entry of scissors from a country boasting the largest and most modern scissor and cutlery facility in the world, appears ludicrous.
The lower level of duty will make your job difficult. The elimination of duty on cutlery from a low labour cost-high technology country such as Brazil will serve to retard the development of the industry in Canada.
I find it difficult to believe that our representatives in Ottawa had this as their goal.
On July 4, 1975, in a letter to Mr. R. E. Foster of Ottawa, the following is to be found in the fourth paragraph:
The more we look into this matter of imports and the reduction of tariffs the more I am becoming convinced that our only salvation for the establishment of
June 29, 1978

an effective Canadian operation is to have all duties revert to the 20 per cent including Brazil. This represents somewhat of a change in my point of view since previously I thought we would be interested in just having Brazil removed from the emerging nation list.
However, imports from Italy seem to be on the increase as well as imports from Japan in the cushion handle scissor. This naturally will have a dramatic effect on our market if it continues its popularity as it has in the past 12 months.
We were scheduled to be represented in the Eaton's catalogue for spring and summer of 1976, however, this week we were advised by telephone they would not be featuring our product since they had decided to feature Brazilian merchandise supplied by Henckels. This naturally is a bitter disappointment for us especially when one is helpless in being unable to compete with the low prices from Brazil which are allowed into this country duty free.
On July 18, 1975, Mr. D. P. Messing, director of tariffs in the Department of Finance, stated as follows:
-we have written to J. A. Henckels Canada Limited requesting its views on your request to have the general preferential tariff removed on scissors imported from Brazil.
That admission is rather as if you were telling someone you were going to war against him and you will attack his flank. Of course they are going to object-this means half their profits. They are importers and naturally they would object. It would be unreasonable if they did not.
On August 6, 1975, Mr. Christopher, in writing to Mr. O'Connell, chief of the service industries machinery division of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, wrote the following:
While I have stressed repeatedly in my communications with various departments of the federal government that we do not intend to hide behind a duty but ask only consideration for the reimposition of the duties to 20 per cent until such time as we can get our feet on the ground and penetrate the Canadian market. This might take a very few years.
Subsequently I indicated in letters to the department that it would take two years. The letter of August 6, 1975 continued as follows:
An example of the problems we face is that we were scheduled to be represented in the 1976 spring and summer Eaton's catalogue but unfortunately we have now been informed we will not be represented in that catalogue as they have been able to buy scissors from Brazil at a more attractive price than we can offer them the Canadian product.
Continually they have attempted to approach the government. On August 12, 1975 Mr. Christopher wrote another letter which read as follows:
Unfortunately in the area of manufacturing Canada is the emerging nation relative to scissors not Brazil.
The letter continued on page 2 as follows:
I personally feel this is a terrific blow to us as that would have been a sizeable portion of our production and to lose that right at the beginning was very disheartening. The prices that we had quoted Eaton's were extremely low, however, we were underbid by a company who could import from a nation that did not have to pay duty on their products coming into Canada. Not only is it harmful that there is no duty, but unfortunately, we as a Canadian manufacturer have to pay a much greater sales tax on our product than does the Brazilian importer. I can't see any fairness in that whatsoever.
Then he referred to two major accounts, Singer and Eaton's. Subsequently on page 3 the letter continued:
As a matter of interest below listed you will find the imports from Brazil from 1970 through April 1975 which does show a modest increase in the selling price
Customs Tariff
of the product until 1975 when there was an $.08 per piece drop, taking it back to the 1973 level.
The letter contains a list of units from 1970 at 112,000 to 1974 at 261,707. The 1970 price is shown as 83 cents; 1971, 88 cents; 1972, 91 cents; 1973, $1.06; 1974, $1.15; and 1975, $1.07. At about this same time other concerns began to develop. On August 21, 1975, a letter from Mr. Messing, the director of tariffs for the Department of Finance, was directed to Mr. Sandford. In part it read as follows:
As we discussed in previous telephone conversations, the information received to date would lead us to believe that importations of scissors from Brazil in the forthcoming year would be about in line with those of previous years. However, I wish to advise you that we have since written to both Eaton's and Singer for their views on your request.
That was a request to have the tariff rejected. Henckels are making a bigger profit because they are making scissors cheaply, and are able to sell the product at a few cents cheaper than the Canadian product is available to consumers. Singer and Eaton's are also making a bigger percentage of profit.
On November 24, 1975 Mr. Christopher directed a letter to Mr. J. P. Connell, Deputy Minister of National Revenue, which read in part as follows:
Imports from some countries, particularly Italy, are seriously damaging our entry on the Canadian market. As a result of the extremely low prices of Italian scissors, I would request your assurance they are paying the duty on a valuation in accordance with the Canadian Customs Act.
The reason for this concern is that although there are difficulties on the production line, which is known by Canadian authorities in Italy, and although Italy has had a greater inflation rate, is required to pay more for its steel and labour wages are higher than those in Perth, according to the American Scissors Manufacturing Association after three years their scissors ended up being offered to consumers at approximately the same prices of 90, 91, 92 and 93 cents per unit. How that company could maintain those prices with Italy's inflation rate and higher wages is beyond imagination.
On December 5, 1975 a letter was directed to Mr. J. Loomer of the Department of Finance which read as follows:
Unfortunately for us, this has not happened and in our efforts to penetrate the Canadian market, we are continually discouraged by negative answers from buyers, resulting from adequate stocks of lower priced merchandise coming in from particularly Brazil and Italy.
The letter continued:
Very recently, we had the opportunity of quoting on scissors being purchased by an American distributor, however, we were more than surprised on learning the duty of scissors going into the United States was 22'/2 per cent plus ten cents per pair on scissors valued at over $1.75 per dozen.
The duty on American scissors coming to Canada is 20 per cent. In 1975 it was approximately 15 percent. The Americans have a much more protective tariff than Canadians. The difference in tariffs is hardly fair for Canadian industry.
On December 24, 1975, a letter was written to Mr. D. P. Messing, Tariff Division, Department of Finance which read as follows:
We had the opportunity of quoting on an order for export to the United States very recently, however, on investigation the duty just completely killed us. Believe it or not, exporting scissors to the United States commands a duty of

June 29, 1978
Customs Tariff
22l/z per cent plus ten cents per pair. Protection like that we would love to have to get this company started.
The Americans protect their businesses, which results in the creation of jobs. The letter continued:
We recently received an export price list of product from Brazil, at the same time we're informed unofficially and verbally the Brazilian government was subsidizing their industry to the extent of 50 per cent of all sales made to the North American market. We can assume this would assist the Brazilian manufacturer in overcoming the high rate of duty going into the United States but would certainly be a windfall for any product shipped into Canada.
On December 24, 1975 this concern about the subsidization of the Brazilian low price was expressed. Continually this company has attempted to receive some recognition. On May 28, 1976, Mr. Christopher directed a letter to me which read in part as follows:
In the recent budget brought down by Mr. Macdonald, he did recognize our problem and the duty will go back on most-favoured nations from 15 per cent to 20 per cent effective June 30. This will be a help.
That assisted them in coping with the problems arising from Italian manufacturers. The Canadian manufacturer is more competitive than English, Finnish, German and Japanese manufacturers. They are not concerned about the scissors from Pakistan, Taiwan or Hong Kong. They are concerned about the high quality scissors from Brazil and Italy. The Italian quality is less than the Brazilian quality. Their main concern was really with Brazilian scissors, which were coming into the country duty free. The letter continued as follows:
The most damaging one to us is the free entry of scissors from Brazil and again since 1 talked to you on the phone we have had heartening discussions and I do expect a review of our situation by cabinet at a very early date.
I should like to refer to an inter-office memo of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce dated July 23, 1976. It was directed to the Chief, Latin America Division, Western Hemisphere Bureau. It was from the commercial officer and was in respect of anti-dumping. According to that document, import tariffs on scissors from Canada to Brazil are 155 per cent. In practice this means very little, because scissors are on the banned commodities list, and the government will not grant import licences even if they could be imported at 155 per cent. Also we find that there are local taxes on scissors in Brazil. There is an industrial products tax of 12 per cent and a mercantile circulation tax of 14 per cent. These are paid by the customer, and one by the manufacturer in respect of exports from these countries coming into Canada. They can claim a greater credit, to the extent of 26 per cent.
On August 17, 1976 he received a communication from Brazil indicating there was a tax problem there. In that letter we found out that the government was willing to investigate anti-dumping. There was an indication on September 3, 1976 that the information available would suggest there was not sufficient evidence to warrant initiating anti-dumping proceedings at that time. That letter ends up by stating that in the circumstances they are closing their file on this matter. This is a matter in respect of which they had just indicated they had knowledge that the Brazilian government was paying a subsidy of 26 per cent on these exports to Canada at a time when
[Mr. Dick.)
Canada was already allowing them to enter the country duty free.
There was some hope in December of 1976 when, through an error, the Minister of Finance issued a memo which was prepared in anticipation of a return to the 20 per cent level. It suggested that scissors from Brazil were to be returned to the 20 per cent duty classification and the preferential tariff would no longer be applicable. That was revoked by a subsequent press release one day later saying that one had been issued in error. Although they had anticipated this return to that level the cabinet ruled against it. Naturally this was a big blow to the company.
A letter from the then minister of industry, trade and commerce, the present Minister of Finance, explained the problem that the scissor company in Canada had in going to Brazil. He said this:
The present tariff on scissors exported to Brazil from Canada is 155 per cent plus a 100 per cent prior deposit of the F.O.B. value of the shipment at the point of export to be held for 360 days without interest and monetary corrections. In addition, due to Brazil's balance of payments difficulties, scissors are on the list of banned imports.
Let me point out that on April 21, 1977, in a letter to Mr. Connell, the Deputy Minister of National Revenue, in paragraph 3, Mr. Christopher, President of International Scissors, states:
We are being materially injured by these subsidized imports from Brazil which are allowed into this country duty free.
In the next paragraph he stated:
It had been brought to our attention by a government official that in addition to the elimination of domestic taxes, the Brazilian scissor industry was subsidized in the amount of 26 per cent by the Brazilian government. We do feel that this is very unfair competition and as a result Countervailing Duties should be imposed.
The next paragraph in the same letter states:
Another source of injury is the result of Italian imports coming into this country in hot forged scissors and the amount of 977,786 pair at an average value of 90 cents. Obviously the difference in price between the Brazilian scissors, which we understand are subsidized, and the Italian scissors surely indicates some degree of subsidizing by some form in Italy.
Perhaps this is speculation, but surely there is reason for some belief that this is in fact the case.
On May 3, 1977, in a letter to the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Department of Finance, Mr. R. Joyce, Mr. Christopher in the third paragraph asks for countervailing duties to be applied to the Italian scissors. He pointed out:
It will be noted the total imports of scissors dropped in 1976 from 5,142,000 to 4,573,000 pair. While the total market was down Italy increased from 884,512 to 977,786 pair and the average price dropped from .93 cents to .90 cents per pair. It is amazing this was possible in view of the increased cost of labour and material in 1976. How can this be possible without either selling at a much reduced value or subsidization of some form.
The final letter which I want to quote at this point is dated November 24, 1977. It is from Mr. Christopher and he states:
-I'm still being slaughtered by Italian imports whose price has not changed even though the dollar has been depressed and inflation runs rampant in Italy. Also the Brazilian situation is getting worse since Singer are selling more and naturally that means they are importing more.
June 29, 1978

1 do feel that the United States certainly know how to protect their industry and that is very evident by the countervailing duties they have imposed on the Brazilians. Also another pill that is pretty hard to swallow is the fact that I have been trying to get in the U.S. market but the extra duties going into that country certainly hurt.
Those are extra duties as compared to the duties the United States companies pay on goods coming into our market.
Let me point out briefly that the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, in a letter over the signature of "Alas-tair Gillespie," then the minister of industry, trade and commerce, dated July 16, 1975, stated:
We have provided financial assistance under the Machinery Program-
That amounted to about $8,000. The letter continues:
-and the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act.
That amounted to about $38,000. It goes on to state:
In addition, we undertook a comprehensive breakdown of scissor imports which helped them in assessing the Canadian market.
I have already referred to that. The federal government contributed money trying to help.
On another sheet I have here which was printed by the American Scissors Association it is indicated that in 1976 the hourly rates for workers in scissors factories in Monza, Italy, was $5.31, and the companies were having persistent assembly operation problems, whereas in Canada the hourly labour cost in Perth is $3.85 to $4.25. In spite of this the Italian scissors come in at a much lower rate, which certainly leads to speculation that in fact there may be subsidization by that government and that perhaps countervailing duties should be imposed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I must inform him that his allotted him has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent? Is there unanimous consent?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Thank you; I will try to be as brief as possible in wrapping up this matter.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I do hear some no's, so I cannot permit the hon. member to continue.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Perhaps I will finish this at a later stage. I regret that I was not given unanimous consent by members on the government side.


An hon. Member:: You are the ones that withhold unanimous consent. You have to play the game.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Customs Tariff


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Ethier in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
Schedules 1 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: When shall the bill be read the third time? With consent, now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave, now.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

Bill reported.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I will not take as much time as I did on second reading as I try to complete this matter. I know the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) will be very happy about that but I hope he does not mind that I tried to present the case. For four years small business has pleaded at every door it could and I have undertaken to try at this juncture as well.
It has been established that there was a possibility that countervailing duties could be imposed by Canada. On October 15, 1976, however, the Department of National Revenue, in a letter to Mr. Christopher, stated as follows:
I refer to your letter of September 16, 1976 in which you refer to the possibility that tax credits provided to manufacturers in Brazil might be subject to countervailing duties in Canada.
There is provision under Section 7 of the Customs Tariff Act for the Governor in Council to impose additional duty on imports that have been subsidized by the government of another country where the goods in question are of a class or kind made in Canada. However, to date, Canada has not invoked this legislation and no regulations to implement the law currently exist.
That section has been in existence for almost 20 years and we have never passed regulations nor promulgated it. This company by its persistence helped to bring about at least the implementation of section 7 and some provisions for countervailing duties in this country. It was as a result of that that in the first part of April, 1977, section 7 was proclaimed. A press release was issued and countervailing duty regulations were put into effect.

June 29, 1978
Customs Tariff
On May 11, 1977, a letter was sent to Mr. Christopher from the Deputy Minister of Revenue acknowledging receipt of his letter and continuing:
-concerning the alleged injurious subsidization of hot forged scissors originating in Brazil and Italy and imported into Canada.
Your request for an investigation pursuant to the recently promulgated countervailing duty regulations is presently under consideration-
The letter did not say they were going to make an investigation, just that it was under consideration. They then asked him to fill in 13 pages of forms which were very complicated compared with the simplicity of the forms required in the United States. On July 28, 1977, the deputy minister again wrote to Mr. Christopher as follows:
No evidence has been disclosed which would indicate that Italy is subsidizing its scissor industry.
Then it continued:
There is some evidence of subsidization with respect to scissors originating in Brazil.
However, it has been noted that that country's share of the Canadian market is relatively small-
It had just about doubled in four years, Mr. Speaker, and the share was very large at the high quality end; in fact, it was the greatest competitor in the high quality end. The letter continued:
-and that there is a significantly larger volume of considerably lower priced Italian scissors entering Canada.
No doubt the quality is not the same. Later the letter stated:
Given these facts, I do not believe that there are sufficient grounds for me to cause a countervailing duty investigation to be initiated-
They did not even bother to investigate, Mr. Speaker. If they had investigated they would have seen a memorandum from the Department of the Treasury in Washington to the Secretary of the Treasury on the subject of the Brazilian export incentive programs, reviewing the fact that there were export incentives in terms of tax that put on a 17'/2 per cent countervailing charge plus the American tariffs for Brazilian scissors which were now 22!6 per cent, plus ten cents per pair. For the same Brazilian scissors to come to Canada the tariff was zero. That just invites a flood of Brazilian scissors into this country.
Even the anti-dumping countervailing duty notices were published in the Federal Register on November 2, 1977. 1 have a copy of the Federal Register, volume 41; the relevant page is page 8634. If they had investigated they would have found as well the petition for countervailing duties on scissors and shears imported from Brazil submitted by the National Association of Scissors and Shears Manufacturers.
It is unfortunate that they did not have an investigation and did not impose countervailing duties on the excuse that the United States legislation was in effect and they could impose countervailing duties where Canada could not. That argument can easily be answered by the fact that Canadian legislation was in effect at the same time as the legislation in the United States. It was on our statute books, whether it was promulgated or not and whether we introduced the regulations at that time or not. I think we have an arguable case, yet this country
[Mr. Dick.)
is continually flooded with Brazilian scissors of exactly the same quality as Canadian scissors.
I note that the government did cancel a tariff reduction on March 21, 1975 on bicycles entering this country because of their adverse effect on Canadian production and employment. These manufacturers may go bankrupt if they continue to lose money every month, but they are persistent and want to get into this market and so keep trying. If they go bankrupt we will not have any such industry in Canada.
The preferential tariff on rubber footwear was suspended. This commodity again was imported in large measure from Brazil. The footwear industry was somewhat concerned and in order to protect jobs and capital invested in Canada the government acted. So we now have two precedents, cases where the government acted.
There was also a reintroduction of tariff on certain tires, so we have two and perhaps three examples of where, because of the potential loss of jobs and capital investment as well as the breakdown of industry in Canada, the government has assisted large companies. The ones I speak of are small entrepreneurs, however, having only about 20 to 40 employees. They cannot work to capacity because they cannot get government assistance.
An article in the Globe and Mail of June 24, 1977, read as follows:
Japanese producers of ball bearings and tapered roller bearings have told the European Economic Community that they are willing to make substantial price increases on all their EEC exports equal to the duty on the bearings, an EEC spokesman says.
So because of the effect that countervailing duties had there, this was to correspond with the dumping margins the EEC claims it found before introducing a 20 per cent countervailing duty on February 4.
This company has asked only for the assistance of the 20 per cent tariff in Brazil. They have asked for a thorough investigation of anti-dumping or possible countervailing duties from Italy. This action has not been taken as yet. They are a small company and they have been stretched to their maximum. This company has begged, it has pleaded, it has done everything except come here with all of its workers, kneel on its knees before parliament and ask for some assistance. What does small industry have to do in this country? The government has been paying it lip service. We have a Minister of State (Small Business) (Mr. Abbott) but what do small business have to do to get assistance? They do not want a 30 per cent, 40 per cent or 50 per cent tariff; they have asked for a return to the 20 per cent tariff which was the tariff they were told was in existence by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
This bill does not call for the reintroduction of that tariff, and I think this bill is lacking in that regard. I wish the minister had amended the bill to bring in this 20 per cent tariff. Without it we will probably lose more jobs in an area which already has 15 per cent unemployment. We will lose Canadian capital. We will lose technology which is being built
June 29, 1978

up at quite a price. Small business is not being helped. The minister looks at me sort of askance. I would remind him that I sent a letter to him on June 19; I know he received it because he was kind enough to reply. I asked for the minister's assistance within cabinet to try to get the customs tariff reinstated. I wanted to plead this case and I felt that perhaps under Bill C-48 it would be the appropriate time to expose this matter. 1 hope the minister will help small business, and especially this particular one.


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


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

[ Translation]


INCOME TAX ACT AND EXCISE TAX ACT
Hon. Jean Chr6tien (Minister of Finance) moved: that Bill C-59, to amend the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act in matters relating to the ownership and operation of small businesses, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.

He said: Mr. Speaker, it is unusual for a Minister of Finance to have one tax bill follow another as closely as is the case tonight. But 1 believe it indicates this government's sensitivity towards the need to encourage and preserve Canadian entrepreneurship.
The bill introduces a series of tax relief measures for small businesses to be added to the broad range of concessions already accorded to such enterprises through our federal tax structure.
Before I touch on the new measures I would like to outline some of the existing provisions that encourage small business development. The most important of the measures already in place is the low income tax rate for small Canadian-controlled private corporations. The tax rate on the first $150,000 of small business income is some 20 percentage points lower than that for large businesses. This preferential treatment is available as long as retained business income accumulated after 1971 does not exceed $750,000.
At current ratios of sales to taxable income, the low tax rate is typically available on the business income of firms with up to $1.5 million in sales and so benefits a large group of Canadian enterprises. Taken in conjunction with the recently enriched dividend tax credit of 50 per cent of dividends received, this measure provides three advantages.
First, the federal revenue forgone due to the low rate of corporate tax is estimated to be some $900 million in 1978. This is thus one of the richest and perhaps the single most
Income Tax Act and Excise Tax Act significant incentive provided through the Income Tax Act. The reduced rate significantly enhances the after-tax cash flow available to these businesses to aid their expansion.
Second, as a result of the new dividend credit, the total corporate and personal income tax on small business income is approximately 10 percentage points lower than that applicable to other types of income, such as employment income or investment income, received directly by individuals.
Third, high income taxpayers enjoy a significant tax deferral on their income from incorporated small business. As long as the income is retained in the corporation it bears the low corporate rate of roughly 25 per cent, or 20 per cent in the case of manufacturing and processing profits. Only upon eventual distribution is tax payable at the higher individual rates. Even these eventual distributions now bear a much lower tax rate due to the new enriched dividend tax credit.
Another important provision of benefit to small business is the guaranteed capital gains treatment. As a result of the 1977 budget, venture investment-type companies which generally invest in the shares of small and medium-sized concerns can elect to have guaranteed capital gains treatment on their investments. This removes a significant degree of uncertainty that existed concerning the gains on the eventual sale of their shares, and thus removes an impediment to venture funding operations.
The 1977 budget removed or greatly simplified a large body of complex tax rules governing corporate distributions. These simplifications removed impediments to useful and constructive business reorganizations, which is an important element in many venture investment situations, and to the expansion of smaller businesses.
Yet another generous small business tax measure is the treatment of employee stock options. With the 1977 budget, the taxation of stock option benefits granted to arm's length employees of Canadian-controlled private corporations is deferred until eventual sale of the shares by the employee and the tax is made payable at capital gains rather than full income rates. This measure directly attacks one of the problems of smaller businesses by making it easier for small, newer companies adequately to reimburse executive and other key personnel without inordinately lowering the firm's working capital.
Turning now to the bill which is before us, it includes two measures amending the Income Tax Act. The first is the introduction of a deferral, for an individual, of capital gains on the transfer of his shares of a "small business corporation" to his children or grandchildren. This deferral would be available only in respect of shares of Canadian-controlled private corporations where all, or substantially all, of the assets are used in certain kinds of business activities. The maximum amount of deferral of capital gains that would qualify would be $200,000 over the lifetime of the individual.
The rollover applies to the shares of corporations that carry on certain specified entrepreneurial activities in Canada. The qualifying categories of business activity include manufactur-

June 29, 1978
Income Tax Act and Excise Tax Act ing, processing, farming, fishing, mining, logging, construction, wholesaling and retailing.
The legislation also provides the authority to add other categories of qualifying business activity. Consideration was given to the extension of this concession to any company that had active business income that qualifies for the small business deduction. Elowever, this would extend the rollover to those individuals able to incorporate a company into which their income from professional and other personal services may be channelled.
In addition, the courts have interpreted the expression "active business income" in such a way as to extend the low corporate tax rate to a broader range of activities, including investments, than was the original policy intention. I think it would be difficult to justify the extension of this new rollover to the shares of professional or personal service corporations or to the shares of those corporations whose activities are essentially of an investment rather than of a business nature.
The second tax measure introduced in this bill relates to capital losses. Under the existing Income Tax Act, a corporation may only deduct allowable capital losses from taxable capital gains. Deductions that cannot be used in the current year may be carried back one year and forward indefinitely.
An individual is subject to the same rule except that he may, in any year, deduct a further $2,000 of his allowable capital losses from any other income. The amendment removed the limitation on the deduction for capital losses on shares and debts of Canadian-controlled private corporations. These "allowable business investment losses" are now to be deductible against income from any source. To the extent that the deduction exceeds the income for the year, the loss could be carried over in the same way as non-capital losses under the present act. To prevent abuse, the loss offset will not apply in certain transactions between related persons.
To provide an additional measure of relief, this bill also extends the period during which the capital gains tax arising on the death of an individual may be paid. Under existing law, payment may be made in equal instalments over a six-year period, together with interest. The bill extends the period to ten years.
This bill also includes two important changes to the Excise Tax Act. Current provisions relating to filing of monthly returns by licensed taxpayers are being amended to provide authority for the Minister of National Revenue (Senator Guay) to alter the period for which returns are required to be filed and tax remitted. It is estimated that more than 20,000 taxpayers who normally pay less than $200 of tax monthly will benefit from this change.
I would remind hon. members that the Minister of National Revenue has also announced that the small manufacturers' regulation will be altered in such a way as to raise the exemption from federal sales tax from $10,000 to $50,000 of annual sales. It is estimated that 11,000 taxpayers who have annual sales of less than $50,000 will no longer be required to
[Mr. Chretien.)
account for federal sales tax. This bill will also provide relief from the federal sales tax on machinery and apparatus for use by small manufacturers directly in the manufacture or production of goods.
These new measures, added to those already in place, demonstrate clearly that our federal tax system is highly favourable to the small businessman. It is probably the most generous among industrial countries in this regard. As an example, let me point out that in the United States the low corporate tax rate applies only to the first $50,000 of income. The limit in Canada for the low rate is $150,000. We go even further by providing a dividend tax credit of 50 per cent of dividends received. The U.S. law provides no such credit. This is indicative of our generally favourable tax treatment of corporations when compared to U.S. tax law.
Whenever one group in our community is helped by a tax incentive, it means that other taxpayers take on a greater share of the burden of financing public services of this country. It is the task of the government to ensure that tax incentives get results and go to the taxpayers they are intended to reach. I believe that the measures in this bill, which will be of significant benefit to small business, are timely and deserving of support.
In conclusion, I wish sincerely to thank my colleague the Minister of State (Small Business) for his help and the continual pressure that he applied to me in order to achieve this measure.
I thought it important that we dissociate these measures from the budget. We had to make a special effort to meet the pressing problem of giving the entrepreneurs of this land a break. The Minister of State (Small Business) and his predecessor, the Minister of State (Environment) (Mr. Marchand), who was in the chamber a few minutes ago, worked very hard at that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am very pleased to have been associated with the creation of the post of Minister of State (Small Business). It was created when I became Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. This Minister of State has worked in close relationship with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner). In the present case, he has been of great help to me in persuading my cabinet colleagues to proceed with measures that would be well received by small businesses in Canada. I thank hon. members for their attention.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased to see this bill. Many of the features in it have been asked for by my colleagues and myself over the years. It is good that someone on the other side was listening and that the government have put the various recommendations we have made into a statute.
There is no doubt that the stability that will come in time to our economy will be brought about by reactivation, encouragement and stimulation of the small business sector. We still
June 29, 1978

have a long way to go, but this is a good first step in aiding our small businessmen.
The rollover feature is good. The only comment I have in that regard is that it seems to leave out the service industries. I suppose when we move into committee of the whole, if that is the intention, we can determine whether service businesses are covered under qualifying small business corporations. They may well be.
The rollover feature, the transfer of share capital of a small business corporation from father to son, mother to daughter, or whatever the case may be-the children of the owner of the corporation-is a good move on the part of the government. I commend them for accepting our recommendation and putting it into this statute.
The small business community generally is very receptive to any encouragement it can be given. I again ask the Minister of State (Small Business) (Mr. Abbott), as I have on numerous occasions, to look into the Small Businesses Loans Act. I believe we can make some improvement there. Since he is also in charge of the paper burden, I would ask the minister to look into the possibility of putting together a pamphlet for the small businessman telling him how to apply for and obtain a loan under the Small Businesses Loans Act. One of the difficulties businessmen encounter is the preparation of the correct information for the banks. I would be pleased to talk to the minister privately at any time to explain what I am getting at.
This bill will go a long way to help the small business sector. We had hoped something more would have been done to stimulate research and development. The small business sector finds it hard to accumulate the funds needed to carry research and development forward. I know from my own experience that many times after a program has been put into operation one finds the treasurer or the comptroller advising that it should be brought to an end because funds for its continuance are not available. I had hoped there would be provision to allow small business to accumulate a reserve for research and development; this would have gone a long way to stimulate development in this important sector.
Small business employs in the order of 60 per cent of the work force of this country and such employment is usually stable. I know from my own experience that we rarely lay people off. When business is slack, when the economy slows down, we usually find some slot for them. This creates a great deal of stability in the labour market and I believe should be recognized.
One would like to have seen something more definite with regard to capital gains. This whole area needs to be looked at carefully. At present there is a great deal of confusion attached to it, particularly in the small business field, and the situation will have to be cleared up the next time a budget is presented.
There is really not much more one can say about this bill. We can deal with individual sections when we consider the measure clause by clause. We are generally of a mind that we
Income Tax Act and Excise Tax Act would agree to the legislation being completed and given third reading before ten o'clock, if other hon. members share this view.


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of State (Small Business));: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take up the time of the House unduly. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) has outlined effectively and comprehensively the contents of this bill which he is sponsoring. I simply want to thank the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling) for his positive comments. He and I, along with members on all sides, share the general view that for too many years the concentration of government, parliament and the media has been least on the unsung heroes of the economy-the businessmen who represent the truly dynamic force of the community. This is the sector of the economy from which new ideas come forward; small companies become great enterprises or, in any event, influence the communities in which they are active. And as we have discovered, they need help.
I do not suggest that the measures in this bill or elsewhere in this small business package represent everything which must be done for small business. We recognize that government has a major role to play but that role must be regarded as a limited one. Government alone cannot create prosperity. It cannot create skilled management or an entrepreneurial spirit in the economy if it is lacking. What government can do is make certain there is a dynamic economy in which business generally can survive.
Further, it can limit the impact of regulations and paperwork falling on the business world. These are, perhaps, small steps but I think they will lead to major accomplishments. We know there is a problem. There is not a government department today which is not much more cautious than it was even a few months ago about inflicting a paper burden on the business community.
Finally, government must ensure that its tax policies and purchasing policies are tuned not solely to the needs of government but to making sure that the system does not deaden entrepreneurship but stimulate it. I believe the tax measures which the Minister of Finance has introduced in this bill go a long way in this direction.
I might mention one of the more important aspects of this bill, one which I believe has received too little attention. I refer to allowable capital losses being deductible in unlimited amount from other income. We have a tax on capital gains and now we have capital losses which are treated in similar fashion. Instead of simply $2,000 a year being deductible, half of any losses sustained by a businessman or someone who invests in the shares of a small business, if the worst happens, can be recouped to a substantial extent through a rebate of income tax.
All across the country there are people who are employed or who have substantial incomes and who dream of the day they cango into business for themselves. What has prevented many of them from doing so is the idea that going into business for themselves is attended by high risk. Anything we can do to

June 29, 1978
Income Tax Act and Excise Tax Act
encourage them by tax measures which do not take all their money when a business makes money, and also provide a cushion in the event of business failure, is surely welcome. Should the venture fail, those engaged in it can take up other work, earn money and write off a substantial amount of their losses against income. The idea is not to support losers but to give an added incentive to those who want to get into business.
I thank hon. members on both sides for the positive attitude they have taken toward this measure and I hope that, as we draw to the end of this session, at least one substantial group in the economy will be happier; that is, the small businessmen.


Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am rather surprised to find myself rising to speak at second reading of Bill C-59, to assist small business. I cannot help but reflect that the need for this type of legislation goes back to the very complicated tax measures which came in under this government in 1972, supported again by the NDP. I think the reason we have this type of legislation before us, which is to give relief and aid, falls right back on those very sad days for Canada when we took a relatively simple tax act and turned it into a very complicated monster which we have been trying to fix, monkey wrench and ratchet ever since.
I am from the small business community. I am one of the people who have spent their lives-and it was not easy-in that community. I started from nothing. I have failed, had to pay off debt, and I have started again. I know the hazards. I know about the 16-hour days and the seven-day weeks which are involved in coming through the preriods of trial and error which an entrepreneur has to go through in order to become successful in the world of business.
The world of business is very exciting. You start to master it only when you gain control over many aspects and components of life. You deal with lawyers and tax auditors. You balance many inputs and conditions. You struggle on matters of supply. Of course, you cannot produce anything unless you have a market to sell it in. Fundamental to it all is an understanding of the marketplace and an ability to handle the data of the marketplace in order to make better decisions, to produce better products and to be competitive in the marketplace.
In the world of small business there is true competition. Small businesses grow, and they fight, and that is where they really have to struggle. That is where the free enterprise system really works. As you come through the limits and parameters of small business, you then begin get into the bigger and heavier leagues where scales of production are necessary and where your marketing becomes more sophisticated and the costs of operating higher. I have seen pre-1972 audit bills in the $3,000 to $4,000 range become an $18,000 to $22,000 wasteful exercise in trying to control an operation in order to be accountable to the tax collector.
One of the reasons I find myself in this House tonight is that I have been through these costs and exercises, and when I come here knowing the sweat it takes to produce a tax dollar

in the private sector and that it is being squandered down here in a careless way, I feel that I have to make my input in order to bring some standard of accountability into the system.
One of the things lately-and particularly since the 1972 Income Tax Act-which has troubled me has been the capital gains tax. I think this is turning out to be an absolute tragedy. I speak from some personal experience. Growth since 1971 has been helped by a very serious inflation component in our economy. Our capital gains tax is not indexed against that inflationary component, and we find that as companies finally latch on to the marketplace and become successful, growth in equity against shares has been very rapid, particularly since December, 1971. So we find that the entrepreneurs who have created much of the new wealth and worth which is being put to work in the Canadian economy employing people and creating new jobs is being locked up in a liquidity which I think is a tragedy for this country.
I think that is one of the causes of the lack of incentive which exists in Canada today. What is the point of becoming successful if you find yourself with $200,000, $300,000 or $400,000 in capital gains which you cannot invest in machinery and physical plant to create new jobs and to create new worth if you have to keep a portion of your capital liquid in order to preserve an estate on death?
I frankly welcome that part of this bill which allows one to roll over to family or defer a capital gain in the amount of $200,000, but what will happen to the family down the road? In the Canadian economy now we have registered retirement savings plans, which are just a mechanism for turning a citizen of this country into a debtor of the Government of Canada. The capital gains tax has turned entrepreneurs and shareholders of successful Canadian corporations into debtors of the Government of Canada. We are playing right into the hands of insurance companies. Because if we are active in life at all and if we start to create this kind of liability for our estates, as we are doing under the present Income Tax Act through capital gains, we are just getting into a situation where more income from corporations and more personal incomes are going into insurance policies to afford some measure of liquidity for our estates or those of our corporations.
I predict that many successful family businesses will be wiped out on the deaths of their successful entrepreneurial owners if they do not have substantial insurance policies or a substantial degree of liquidity in order to handle the capital gains tax.
I think the present law is very harmful to the cash flow needs of small business and is interfering with the investment of capital into new activity and new research. I would like to see the government give serious consideration to turning equity in the small, successful business component over to employees. I do not think this should be limited just to members of families. Many people who are not blood relatives of owners of businesses who have worked long and hard and dedicated their lives to the success of the owners' enterprises should have an entitlement to some kind of rollover formula, such as a share
June 29, 1978


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Turner in the chair.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
On clause 4-Debts established to be bad debts and shares of bankrupt corporation.
William James Kempling: Mr. Chairman, one does not even have a chance to straighten one's tie before finding the committee is already on clause 4.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: There is an engine driver in the chair.


William James Kempling: First I will ask the minister to explain clause 4.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: This is an important technical amendment of a relieving nature to enable a capital loss to be triggered in respect of shares of the capital stock of a bankrupt corporation in the year in which the corporation becomes bankrupt.
At present, a taxpayer is forced to dispose of his shares in a bankrupt corporation in order to recognize a capital loss. In the case of a bankrupt corporation its shares would not have any value. This amendment eliminates the disposition requirement by simply deeming the shares to have been disposed of for no proceeds in the year in which the corporation becomes bankrupt. This amendment is particularly relevant for the purpose of the new rules introduced in this bill for the deduction of "allowable business investment loans" on shares of a bankrupt Canadian-controlled private corporation. But the rule is not restricted to such corporations-it will apply to the shares of any corporation that becomes bankrupt.


William James Kempling: The minister said initially in his remarks that the provision applied to the shares of a small private corporation. Then he said it would apply to any incorporated business that goes bankrupt.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I did not say it applied only to small businesses. I said it applied to the shares of any corporation, big or small.
Income Tax Act and Excise Tax Act


William James Kempling: How does the minister differentiate between them? Is this to apply to a public company as well as a private company?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is to apply to every private and public company that goes bankrupt.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 5-Transfer of share of capital stock of small business corporation.
Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Finance to explain clause 5, the deferment of capital gains and the rollover provisions, and why the government found it necessary.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: With pleasure, Mr. Chairman. The government believes it is important to encourage family businesses. It does not want the capital gains tax system to impede the orderly transfer of small, family-owned businesses to succeeding generations. Family businesses are an important part of our society. The government believes it should be possible for the owner of a small business to pass it on to his children without incurring an immediate tax liability.
This clause and clause 6 will provide an important new deferral of tax on up to $200,000 of capital gain where a taxpayer transfers the shares of a qualifying "small business corporation" to his children or grandchildren after May 25, 1978.
A qualifying "small business corporation" is a Canadian-controlled private corporation whose property consists substantially of assets used in manufacturing, processing, mining, construction, logging, farming, fishing, wholesaling, retailing, or other prescribed qualifying businesses, or shares and debts of another qualifying business corporation.
The rollover will not apply to the shares of a company that carries on a service business, such as a company formed for the purpose of rendering personal, administrative or professional services. It will not apply to a business whose income is "passive", for example, consisting of real estate rentals or income from investments.
Is that all right?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I think the minister is doing fine, but I wonder if he could explain to me why service businesses and passive businesses have been excluded from this provision.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is a complex problem, as the hon. member can understand. There are all sorts of corporations that are not of an entrepreneurial nature. I called them passive in my description. For example, there are some professionals who incorporate into service corporations. Part of their income is transferred into that corporation, but in fact their earnings are their own, not those of a business activity. We want to encourage entrepreneurs and we do not want to create a loophole for what we call passive investments. That is why we make a distinction between an entrepreneurial type of business and the passive type of business in this provision.

June 29, 1978
Income Tax Act and Excise Tax Act


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I thank the minister for his explanation but I should like to point out to him that if he wants to encourage entrepreneurial talent in this country he will find that these are usually people who start without capital. When they want to borrow, they deal with a banker who puts a $5,000 limit on them, so they need someone to come along with risk capital, and this bill seems to take care of that in part.
Most manufacturing businesses and successful entrepreneurial enterprises which grow to employ people in good, productive work start a service business. I would like to know why service businesses have been excluded from this rollover. There are probably some successful businessmen with substantial equity whose progeny deserve the same type of privilege that is being extended to the other businesses classified here.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The type of person to whom the hon. member referred would qualify under this provision. We are trying to restrict passive corporations-for example, lawyers, accountants, or medical doctors who incorporate and then rent premises from the corporation and pay a big rent to their own corporation so as to get a better tax rate. That is the kind of loophole we want to avoid. But in the case which the hon. member described of a small business with a spirit for risking money and developing, such a business would qualify.
Of course, in the schedule in the regulations we try to make a distinction to cover the type of case mentioned by the hon. member. In the case of a passive service company which incorporates to protect itself against higher taxes, we do not want to encourage them. The hon. member wants to encourage exactly the same thing as I, namely risk-taking ventures by small businesses. These situations will be covered.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: This area will require work in order to clean up the regulations. The last thing I want to see created is another bureaucracy, along with the Minister of State (Small Business). That area will cause various problems if the regulations are not worked on and cleaned up.
A rollover of up to $200,000 in capital gains into the second generation is being allowed. If a business continues to grow and is successful, and, as every man hopes, if the son is smarter than his father, a capital gains debt situation will be created which could wipe out the estate of that second generation. This type of legislation puts the entrepreneurial energy of Canada and Canadians into a continuing debt load which will have to be handled down the road. Is there any planning involved? I am grateful for the rollover and so are many people in my generation, but what about the generation to follow? Has this been thought about?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: An exemption of $200,000 is being allowed for the rollover to the family. If there is a larger capital gain than that at death, an extension to ten years has been provided in the time for the second generation to pay taxes over the

$200,000. That period of time has been extended from six years to ten years. They have ten years in which to pay the required taxes. We are not forcing them to sell. If there is a large capital gain, the first $200,000 is exempt. For the remainder, they will be provided with ten years in order to pay the government. That was to ensure that the next generation was not burdened with a heavy debt load upon the death of their fathers. There are provisions to cope with the situation described by the hon. member. I do not know what will happen in the distant future. I hope I will not be Minister of Finance 15 years from now.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: If the Minister of Finance had removed capital gains taxes, I am sure he would have overcome all the troubles he has faced since taking on his portfolio.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Towers:: Mr. Chairman, what is the relationship of this tax measure compared to the one passed in Bill C-56 which relates to farming? Does the minister have a comment to make on that?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is exactly the same, but in farming we have not imposed a ceiling of $200,000.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Did the minister say that in the case of farming a ceiling of $200,000 is not being imposed?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That is right.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 11-Commencement and application.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, what is the significance of the two exemptions in clause 11 ? Why are they separated?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to extend the same relief from federal sales tax for machinery and apparatus currently available to licensed manufacturers to persons and firms classed as small manufacturers.
Under the current provisions of the Excise Tax Act, small manufacturers are not required to account for tax on their sales. However, small manufacturers are specifically excluded from the benefits of the exemptions for machinery and apparatus used directly in the manufacture or production of goods which are available to licensed manufacturers.
This amendment will permit small manufacturers to purchase most machinery and apparatus for use directly in their manufacturing operations exempt from federal sales tax, and thus provides additional benefits to small businesses.


William Arnold Peters: Does this bill leave in the old category things such as the acquisition of property, buildings and other assets which are not directly related to production?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, Mr. Chairman.
June 29, 1978


William Arnold Peters: Does that mean they are exempted, or are they in the same category as production machinery?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Production machinery does not apply.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Once this bill has carried, will the Minister of Finance resign?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Bill reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) if this is an inter vivos transfer which we have completed tonight.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I stopped studying Latin 25 years ago.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I realize the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) wants to be recognized, but he has already spoken and he cannot speak again.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


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


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has appointed certain hon. senators to act on a Special Joint Committee on the Constitution of Canada.
Is the House disposed to attempt consideration of Bill S-2?


Some hon. Members:: No.
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mrs. Jean E. Pigott (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, on February 13 last I asked certain questions about the reason the government passed over the highly qualified vice-chairman of the Anti-dumping Tribunal, Dr. Marguerite Ritchie, and appointed as chairman a man with no experience of any kind with the tribunal. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mac-Eachen) complimented Dr. Ritchie, stating that she had a distinguished career in the public service and a well established reputation as a lawyer. The only part of his reply which could be related to my question was the following:
In this particular case, because of the tribunal's requirements in relation to international trading concerns it was felt that the present appointee would be best qualified. There is no tradition in the public service, to my knowledge, that the vice-chairman automatically proceeds to the post of chairman.
This reply, like many from the government to repeated questions about this appointment, contains statements which are obviously senseless. The man appointed as chairman of the tribunal obviously has no recent experience with international trading concerns as he has spent the last five and half years with the Department of Transport and the Department of National Defence. The government was clearly not being factual in this reply. I have nothing against the chairman and I am certain he is competent in his field, but having worked under the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) one wonders.
When we speak of the Anti-dumping Tribunal, we are speaking of a court of record. Let me refer to the act for a moment. It states that the tribunal is a court of record and shall have an official seal which shall have judicial notice. The five members who make up this tribunal must be skilled in international trading, have trained legal minds, and must understand how to operate a court of record. Having unskilled people in this area is just not adequate.
I have appeared before this tribunal and such appearances are costly because of legal fees, but what is more important is the time it takes. Very often an industry or a business is up against the wall because of dumping, and the preparation of a case requires time and a high degree of legal and accounting skills. Can you imagine the frustration of an industry which takes its case before the Federal Court of Appeal, which upsets the finding of the Anti-dumping Tribunal and has to start all over again? I have a reference before me of a case before the Federal Court of Appeal on June 9. In the judgment the application was allowed, and the decision which dated back to December 31, 1976 was set aside. Can you imagine the consternation of this industry when it found that the Federal Court of Appeal sent it back to the drawing board?

June 29, 1978
Adjournment Debate
Again I suggest that the chairman, the vice-chairman and other members of this tribunal must come from a highly skilled background, particularly in these days when the business community has many concerns about the present economic climate. They want to be certain that the tribunal is being run competently.
I was disturbed at the way the appointment took place. A letter from the Prime Minister's office says that the only reply to questions on Dr. Marguerite Ritchie is the one given in the House. It points out that different qualifications were required by the organization at this time, that the demands of various government organizations change with the times and that the government must be aware of this and responsive to it in order that they be effective in their work. The letter pointed out that the appointment in no way reflected on Dr. Ritchie's qualifications, as her work is well known by the government, and that there was no discrimination on the basis of sex in this case.
I worry about the government wanting to change things, Mr. Speaker. I am all for change in the corridors of power in this country, but it worries me when this government wants to change things that only parliament can change. Parliament is the instrument of change, not the cabinet or the Privy Council office.
The Anti-dumping Tribunal is a court, Mr. Speaker. It has power to assess witnesses. It is referred to in the act as a court of justice; there is provision for a report to the tribunal and an annual report must be made to parliament. It is a court and I think it is very important that the most highly skilled people be put in place there. Interference in the courts is never permitted and we must be very certain that at no time could a telephone call from high places in this government make the Anti-dumping Tribunal perhaps change its findings. This is a very critical matter.
There is one other area that I think I should comment on and that is the D'Avignon committee which is looking into employment practices regarding women. There is no woman on this committee, Mr. Speaker. Considering that the percentage of women in the ghetto that is called the administrative support area has risen over 10 per cent, the most important thing to remember is that women in the senior executive category have risen from zero per cent to 2.9 per cent. It is almost inconceivable that a committee looking into injustices in the public service would not be represented by a member of a group that seems to be suffering the greatest injustice.


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


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to add to the good and honest answer given by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) on February 13, 1978 to a question from the hon. member dealing with the non-appointment of Miss Ritchie, vice-chairman of the Anti-dumping Tribunal, to the position of chairman and the appointment of Dr. Kirkwood, formerly the
[Mrs. Pigott.1
senior assistant deputy minister of transport, who was appointed chairman effective January 15, 1978. Let me insist on making four short but complete and clear points.
First, there was no element of discrimination whatsoever in this case and the government is committed to the promotion of women based on merit.
Second, Miss Ritchie has had a distinguished career in the public service and has a well established reputation as a lawyer.
Third, in making the appointment of Dr. Kirkwood the government wanted to place in the position of chairman a person with a strong background in economics, taking into account current international trading circumstances. This is very important.
Fourth, there is no tradition in the public service of promoting the vice-chairman to the position of chairman when it becomes vacant. Sylvia Ostry was appointed chairman of the Economic Council of Canada and Pamela McDougall was appointed chairman of the Tariff Board when these agencies already had vice-chairmen on staff.


MANPOWER-EMPLOYMENT OF IMMIGRANTS
Mr. Hal Herbert (Yaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, the constituency of Vaudreuil which I have the privilege of representing includes a very large rural area. Also included is the western part of the island of Montreal, an urban area which contains a large number of businesses, many of them multinational, foreign-owned, and businesses which deal with all provinces and which in some cases are distribution centres and manufacturing centres for export business to the United States.
In the constituency of Vaudreuil the latest unemployment figures which I received recently from the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) indicate the level is presently at 5.6 per cent. I suggest 5.6 per cent unemployment today is a very low rate. It includes those people changing jobs, and others who for various reasons are listed as unemployed.
The problem with that low rate of unemployment is that it is proving extremely and increasingly difficult for companies to find the calibre of employee which they need in large companies; for example, pharmaceutical companies, electronics and aerospace groups which all require a fairly high level of technology. The problem is made worse by the fact that the repressive legislation of the separatist government in Quebec is effectively keeping out Canadians from other provinces who, because they are unable to send their children to English schools, are no longer willing to come to the province of Quebec.
There has always been a turnover of personnel in the west island of Montreal, which is mainly the English area. This is where the company executives live, and executives are always on the move. In fact, in one area of my riding the turnover has been in the order of every four or five years. This means that
June 29, 1978

under present circumstances people are leaving and they are not being replaced by newcomers, resulting in the fact that today companies can only draw on a market of Quebec personnel. Unfortunately, that market is not able to satisfy the demand. More and more we are finding representatives of these large companies are coming to their member of parliament and saying that something has to be done. The problem is aggravated by the fact that we have closed our doors to immigrants. Even the American owned companies are no longer able to bring in American immigrants to fill positions that Canadians are unwilling to take.
I listened to a question put by my colleague, the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook), and it seems that in the west end of Toronto a somewhat similar situation exists. Companies there are also finding it difficult to fill vacancies for positions that require a reasonably high level of experience and knowledge.
I put my question to the minister last Friday on the basis of one particular job where the salary offered was $38,000. The position required some medical knowledge. The reply I received in writing from the minister disappointed me because he pointed out that there are 150 doctors unemployed in the province of Quebec at the present time and these doctors have a right to expect a salary of between $60,000 and $80,000. Personally, if an individual has such a high expectation and is not willing to accept a position paying $38,000, I do not consider that person an unemployed worker. Nevertheless, the point is, whether or not these doctors are prepared to work for a salary of $38,000, that we do have many positions with fairly high levels of pay that we are not presently able to fill, despite the fact that, theoretically at least, we have almost one million unemployed, and also despite the fact that we have programs which are supposed to transfer people from one region to another.
Unemployment is supposed to be high in Quebec and particularly high in Montreal. To travel from the centre of Montreal to the west island of Montreal takes half an hour by public conveyance and even less by automobile.
The situation, then, is quite serious. If we are not able to get a change in attitude from the minister to at least permit immigrants to come in and fill the jobs that Canadians are not willing to fill, we are going to see more and more of these international companies moving out of the province of Quebec. Already three pharmaceutical companies have decided to move. Other pharmaceutical companies are experiencing the same kind of staffing problem that has been referred to previously and reported to the media by the Sun Life Company.
It is true, and I agree, that we should give preference to Canadian workers. However, if the expectation of Canadians today is such that they are not prepared to accept positions with salaries-and I use as a talking point salaries in excess of $20,000 or $25,000-as far as I am concerned they should not even be listed statistically among the unemployed.
Adjournment Debate
I think the situation is serious enough that the minister is going to have to take another look at the position, not only in Toronto where the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook) referred to difficulties, but especially in the province of Quebec where the language problem has made even more difficult the finding of suitable personnel.


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


William Kenneth Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) has presented a question which he put to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) and also referred to a question put by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook). His concern relates to a problem on the west island of Montreal where potential immigrants have been refused entry into Canada to fill positions which employers have not been able to fill with Canadian workers.
When the hon. member raised the question on June 23 concerning the employment of foreign doctors in Quebec, it was stated that a review of the matter would be considered. I understand that a Montreal pharmaceutical company had recruited an American doctor to fill the position of assistant medical director. This position had been vacant since June 1977. The commission was not contacted until October 1977 and by that time the American doctor had been offered and had accepted the position, although the job offer had not been validated by Canada Employment Centre.
Six Canadian candidates meeting all the requirements of the original job description were referred to the company. Reportedly none of the candidates were interviewed in person. Nevertheless the company decided that these candidates could not fill the position.
The company informed the Canada Employment Centre that they required the candidate to understand German. Some of the candidates referred, all members of the Corporation of Surgeons and Physicians of the province of Quebec, were neo-Canadian and did understand German, but they were refused just the same.
The officials in Quebec region felt that the company was not complying with the guidelines on hiring Canadian residents first and recommended that the job offer not be validated. This recommendation was accepted and I understand every indication was given that everything possible will be done to protect jobs for Canadians. However, it would appear that this decision would be reviewed if the company were to examine and consider the candidates referred by the commission and were able to give sound rationale as to why the candidates were not suitable.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I regret to interrupt the parliamentary secretary but his time has expired.
6900

June 29, 1978
Adjournment Debate


POST OFFICE-SUGGESTED REDUCTION OF EMPLOYEES
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, it is not often that we can expect to get a straight answer from the government concerning the Post Office, but last Friday the Postmaster General (Mr. Lamontagne) did give a direct and unequivocal answer to a question.
At that time I had in my possession a document entitled "Ontario Postal Region Business Plan Summary, 1978-1982", which indicated it was the intention of the Post Office to eliminate 269 jobs. The minister told me the report was incorrect. He said, in fact, that it was "very wrong". He told the House that such reports were only studies and that he could not stop management from-and I quote-"supplying me with studies on ways they could maybe save some money in the Post Office." He added that even if such plans did exist they would not be implemented in the absence of consultation with the unions. He made this very clear. "These cutbacks, if any, will be made", he said, "with the collaboration of the unions." He emphasized that point in response to a question asked yesterday, when he said: "Manpower reduction will be brought about through attrition in consultation with the unions."
Mr. Speaker, if you look at all those statements you will find that at first glance they appear to be direct and emphatic. But a closer look reveals that there are some problems. The first concerns just which reports accurately reflect the state of the Post Office. Many of us have seen the Hay report, issued in 1975, which was a damning indictment of Post Office management. But the minister asks us to ignore that because it is too old. He does not want us to be concerned with the past.
Then we discover reports which say that Post Office manpower is being reduced in the absence of any discussion with the unions. The Postmaster General asks us to ignore them because they are too new. He says they are only studies. These comments strengthen my suspicion that the minister has simply no idea what is going on in his department.
I now have in my possession another document entitled "London Post Office Business Plan, 1978-1979". This is not a study. This is not a report containing suggestions for the minister. It is the business plan for the London post office. It is being implemented. It is signed by Ray Jones, the district director for southwestern Ontario, and it states very clearly on page 1 that unless otherwise specified the starting date for all action plans is April 1, 1978. This document talks about a reduction of staff in the processing end of the operation. It talks about modifications in letters of understanding between management and the Letter Carriers Union. It also talks about eliminating certain walks and about transferring people into the letter carrier division.
I am not just referring to the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. Yesterday in the House the minister said there were problems in discussing matters with CUPW. He inferred it was the fault of the union that management had not informed the workers of changes. But he also said that with the LCUC, consultations are very easy, and he told us that before any change is made LCUC would be consulted.
I wonder if the minister was saying he had no intention of consulting with CUPW before changes are made. I wonder where the minister gets his information. I spoke to the Letter Carriers Union representative at their head office here yesterday and they contacted their office in London. The people there had not even heard of the study or of the plan which is being implemented. Obviously the Post Office has not bothered to discuss it with them. And this is a union with which the department has such a great relationship, according to the minister.
If the minister wants us to believe he knows what he is doing, it is time he issued clear policy directives and insisted that they are followed. We have been going on for too long discovering a new management study or a new program being put into operation every week. If the minister does not now know what is going on in the department perhaps the only way for him to find out is to issue firm directives and insist that they are followed. That way he might eliminate once and for all the need to deny the significance of a new report every week.


Hon. J.-Gilles Lamontagne (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, let us not get excited or emotional about this subject. I have tried to give the hon. member the most direct answer I could give him. On June 23 and again on June 28 the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) asked the same question. Again tonight in a different style he has asked it again. However, I bring to the attention of the House the title of an article in the Globe and Mail this morning, and I quote: "CLC to put all its resources behind the NDP in next federal election".
I quite understand the intervention of the hon. member for Nickel Belt. The hon. member seems to be representing the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. To me and this government all workers, without exception, have the same merit, and I will do my utmost to provide all workers with good working conditions and fair collective bargaining. Even if they do not put all their resources behind the Liberal party, the welfare of the workers is to me beyond any political consideration.
In order to avoid any confusion, which seems to be the reason for the questions and documents mentioned by the hon. member, I will give him my answer in English first.
I repeat that this is not a management study but a business plan which is in the process of being implemented. Yet in spite of the minister's assurances that unions will be included in the discussion of any such plans, the unions were not contacted.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner).]
No permanent postal employees will lose their jobs as a result of departmental or technological changes, but manpower reduction, if any, will be handled through attrition with consultation with the union.
June 29, 1978

Just in case the hon. member did not understand that in English, I will repeat it in French.

No permanent postal employees will lose their jobs as a result of departmental or technological changes, but manpower reduction, if any, will be handled through attrition with consultation with the union, if it is prepared to discuss this matter.
If I have added this last part to my sentence, Mr. Speaker, it is to indicate that it is not always easy to deal with unions, and as evidence of this I should like to quote from three letters between the managers in Calgary and the president of the local of the Union of Postal Workers in Calgary. On June 6-

On June 6, Mr. Wilde, manager of the Calgary plant, wrote to Mr. Hall, president of the Calgary Local of CUPW, telling him that some changes were needed and that he would like to meet with him to discuss those changes. Mr. Wilde fixed the date of June 28 at 10 a.m. Mr. James Hall, president of CUPW in Calgary, responded as follows:
Adjournment Debate
I agree with Mr. Wilde that meaningful consultation is always appropriate. I must note, however-
He asked what the agenda would be, and he agreed to discuss the matter. However, here is the end of the story. On June 21 Mr. Hall, president of CUPW at Calgary, sent a letter to Mr. Hyde, our manager, and I quote:
Immediately after mailing my letter of acceptance to your invitation to consultation, I received instructions from my national president on the matter.
I am informed that the changes you propose fall within the area governed by article 29 of the collective agreement.
So, no more communication. The hon. member for Nickel Belt received a copy of one of these letters because that is indicated on the letter. However, communication with some of the unions is not always easy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 10.30 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
80045-69y2

Friday, June 30, 1978