1978-02-03

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the growing urgency surrounding the Garrison diversion project and its effect upon Manitoba's lakes and rivers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That this House direct the Prime Minister to send a diplomatic note immediately to the U.S. government stating Canada's firm commitment to the recommendations of the IJC that guarantee no environmental harm to Canada, and that the Secretary of State for External Affairs refer both the International Joint Commission report on Garrison and the "Andrus plan" to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PENSIONS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgency; therefore, under the provisions of Standing Order 43. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That this House regrets the failure of the government to take any action to require the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway to improve their pension plans as recommended by Dr. Noel Hall in his report on Canadian railway pension plans and, further, noting that the pension issue is a major element in the breakdown of labour-management railway contract negotiations, this House calls on the government to insist on immediate increases in the pensions of retired railway workers and the inclusion of an indexing provision in all railway pension plans.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington):
That any legislation brought forward by this government in reference to granting authority to police officers to open mail require that authorization be sought and granted by a judge of the superior court of a province and that such authorization only be granted if an affidavit by the applicant states that such police officers have reasonable grounds to believe the security of the nation is threatened or a serious crime is involved.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for discussion only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to introduce an important motion of pressing necessity.
Since the Prime Minister has decided to accept the resignation of the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Fox) as minister of his cabinet; since that minister was directly related in the House to the case of RCMP illegal activities; since that resignation could be interpreted as a means to prevent the minister from answering questions about the part played by the government in that shameful affair involving the RCMP; and since the members of this House are entitled to question the ministers of Her Majesty, I move, seconded by

February 3, 1978
the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan):
That the House demand that the former solicitor general be authorized to answer specific questions concerning his department, especially as regards the so-called RCMP affair.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Such a motion can be presented only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that only one nation in the industrial world, Denmark, contributes less money than Canada for research in the field of agriculture, and since the present support for agricultural research in Canada is miserably low when compared with that for private business and industry, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway):
That this House urges the government of Canada to reverse its destructive intention to curtail the use of public institutions for research in agricultural production and contract such research to private research institutions which in the case of plant and animal breeding is non-existent.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the CBC has sufficient resources to finance such programming frivolity as conducting a national telephone survey on the dreams of Canadians, including wasting the time of members of parliament with such nonsense, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin):
That this House unanimously condemns such irresponsible squandering of public funds by the CBC and directs the corporation to provide forthwith realistic production facilities in the province of New Brunswick and access to

AM and FM radio programming in both official languages to all the people of New Brunswick.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for debate, pursuant to Standing Order 43, can be done at this time only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Paproski:: The Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) said "No".


REMARKS ABOUT MINISTER OF TRANSPORT-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
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 Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) is recorded in Hansard for November 26, 1974, as forecasting, and I quote, "I shall see Otto Lang tarred and feathered and driven out of Saskatchewan", and "I will pay for the oil and I will pluck the chickens", I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall):
That the minister advise the House whether he is still prepared to pay for the oil and pluck the chickens needed for the tarring and feathering of his colleague, or whether he no longer desires such a sticky future for the Minister of Transport.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move a motion, under Standing Order 43, regarding an urgent and pressing matter. In view of the fact that Northern Telecom, a subsidiary of Bell Canada, laid off over 1,000 workers in the last year and that new lay-offs of an additional 400 workers in Montreal and Brantford are being announced, and in view of the statement by Telecom's chairman, Mr. Robert Scrivener, that Northern Telecom would hire more workers if Bell is allowed to increase its residential telephone rate by 20 per cent and its business rate by 28 per cent, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House unanimously condemns the economic blackmail by Bell Canada and Northern Telecom and urges the government to stop immediately the millions of dollars in tax concessions provided to Northern Telecom to create
February 3, 1978

jobs in Canada instead of laying off workers and using Canadian taxpayers' moneys to expand in the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for discussion, pursuant to Standing Order 43, only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, if I could interrupt his conversation with his Quebec lieutenant, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Hees:: Good old bilingual Jack.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, someone across the aisle now confirms that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is the Quebec adviser to the Government of Canada, and I am prepared to accept that advice. My question to the Minister of Finance flows from the most recent publication of statistics by this government which indicate the failures of the policies of the government.
Today, reports from the Department of Employment and Immigration indicate that in the month of January in excess of 7,000 Canadians were laid off at plants across this country. That continues the very dangerous pattern that was evident in October, November and December and indicates, also, that the government must do something quickly to stop this pattern of lay-offs which is adding to unemployment in the country. My question to the minister is simple: What immediate action does the government intend to take to halt this dangerous pattern of lay-offs across the country?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, 1 prefer to have some advice from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce on national issues, on a Friday morning, rather than the kind of advice that the Leader of the Opposition was trying to get in Quebec City last Friday. I think we are very much aware that we have some difficult economic problems in this land, and we are working very hard to try to improve the situation.
Last Friday I spoke with my colleagues, the ministers of finance of the provinces, about the general situation. There will be an economic summit with the premiers and other ministers in the next couple of weeks. They are trying to do whatever is possible to improve the situation. We stated our economic policies in October, and this month some tax cuts
Oral Questions
come into the economy. We cut income tax by $100, for January and February, for seven million taxpayers. On January 1 we-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The hon. member said we do not have economic policies, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to report to him that many ministers of finance-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Charles Joseph Clark: If I may summarize that answer, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance said that his plan is to continue to talk while plants close down across the country. He referred to his meeting with provincial ministers of finance. If press reports are correct, at that meeting he repeated his projection that there would be a rate of growth of at least 5 per cent, and perhaps 5.5 per cent, this year. I do not know of one, and I defy the minister to name any serious economist in the country who accepts that rate of growth.
What worries this House of Commons is that if the minister is wrong in this, as he has been in everything else, we are going to have deeper problems with unemployment and the economy of this country. Will the minister table in this House the projections and inform tion from his department on which that forecast of growth rate was based?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we discussed those policies with officials of the Department of Finance and the Bank of Canada. We were not the only ones who predicted that Canadian growth in 1978 will be second only to Japanese growth, of all countries in the world, and will be better than all other OECD countries. We said on October 20 that the growth pattern for 1978 would be 5 per cent, and we do not have to change that figure. The Leader of the Opposition is asking if we have some company. I was quite pleased to learn that the Conference Boards of Canada and the United States predicted that the Canadian economy in 1978 would be better than any country other than Japan.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the minister is supposed to be dealing with figures. He has given a hard figure of at least 5 per cent, perhaps 5.5 per cent. Who else predicts that rate of growth for Canada? The answer is that nobody else of standing predicts that rate of growth. 1 am asking the Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I was about to call to order the Leader of the Opposition, who had put a question and then began to answer it. 1 think that is extending the privileges of the question period.


Charles Joseph Clark: A supplementary question. My reasonable request is to the Minister of Finance. Canadians who are presently unemployed, and the number is growing each month, are the ones who are interested in being assured that the
2510

February 3, 1978
Oral Questions
economic policy of this government will create new jobs, my question is: Will the minister make available to the House of Commons the information on which he bases his projection, so we can be sure the minister correctly understands that information, that he is correctly presenting the views of his officials, and so that all Canadians, including this parliament, will have some reason for confidence-something more than the word of this minister that we can count upon for that kind of rate of real growth in the country? Will he make that information available to the House of Commons?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I made an economic statement on October 20, 1977, in which 1 explained why we believe the growth will be 5 per cent. There is no information at present which will force me to change that projection. I stand by what I said. Before I made those projections, I had long discussions with the very able advisers of the Department of Finance and the Bank of Canada, and to date they have not asked me to change my position.


Charles Joseph Clark: Will the Minister of Finance agree, right now, to resign if he is wrong in that projection?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I can understand that the hon. member would like me to be out of politics. I would like to be out of politics, but when I see that we could be replaced by a party which will be led by him, I have reason to stay around.


GOVERNMENT ADVICE TO JOBLESS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the soon-to-be unemployed Minister of Employment and Immigration. I ask him this question: Given the fact that according to the latest Figures of Statistics Canada, there are 26 job seekers for every job opening in this country, and apart from the frivolous and irresponsible advice he gave to the group he calls the mommas and poppas of the country not to send their kids to university, as well as a million dollars worth of offensive advice he has given to unemployment insurance recipients, what advice does he have for the one million Canadians for whom there are no job openings?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, with that preamble we have seen an unusual phenomenon: the hon. member's mind stopped working and his mouth kept functioning.


An hon. Member:: Tell that to the unemployed.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants to constantly misquote what in fact was said by myself, I suppose that is appropriate enough, if that is the kind of hyperbole that he wants to use. Let me suggest to him that in addition to being the official crepe-hangers over there, some consideration should be given to the fact that in villages and small communities such as Pembroke an industrial park has been opened, and Shell are talking about embarking upon a $200 million expansion.

The hon. member has said there is no hope for the people who are unemployed. I say that is just not the case. Shell management have indicated they are expanding; they are moving into a Syncrude project. When we hear all the blues being cried about not being able to lease buildings in Ottawa, we should remember that Metropolitan Life, with its large building, says they are having no difficulty. There are all kinds of opportunities and optimism alive in the country.


LEADERSHIP FROM DEPARTMENT TO IMPROVE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION
James Aloysius McGrath: My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. If we are to go by the irrational statements of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, his mind is certainly not working. My question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is this: Given the fact that in the month of January there were more than 7,000 plant lay-offs, affecting every region of the country, mainly because of lack of orders, what direction or leadership can we expect from the minister and his department with respect to the plants which are being forced to close down and lay-off Canadians because of lack of orders?
Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, it should be noted that at any given time in a normal year, 25 per cent of the labour force change jobs.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Horner:: I hear members saying "Oh, oh!" Some move up the ladder, some move laterally, and some move to new locations. I would also like to state that my department, through the enterprise development program, is assisting industry every day. In fact, in the month of January we probably substantiated 7,000 more jobs.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. I congratulate him on his appointment and on assuming this new responsibility. I wish him luck: he will probably need a lot. The evidence given before the McDonald inquiry yesterday was that the break-in at the offices containing PQ Files was inspired, not by the RCMP security service but by information given from the Privy Council Office to the RCMP to the effect that the PQ was being funded from a foreign source.
Can the minister confirm that it was the PCO which gave the information to the RCMP before that activity against the PQ? Also, can he advise what evidence the PCO had, that the
February 3, 1978

RCMP did not have, which inspired the RCMP to move on the PQ?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his kind words. With regard to the question he has raised, I would point out to him that the McDonald commission is dealing with the issues that he has identified. It will be my policy to leave the McDonald commission to make its own conclusions on the evidence that is adduced. I will not be commenting on a day by day basis on evidence that may be adduced before that commission on a prior occasion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, the question of political responsibility is the one that is being asked. The Solicitor General knows that. This is a blank refusal to deal with the responsibility of this government. I hope the Canadian public understand what is happening when the Solicitor General gives that kind of answer. My supplementary question is this: Also before that inquiry, evidence was given that, in fact, when the Japanese Red Army terrorist was arrested, the illegal mail openings that took place were unnecessary. The evidence was, with hindsight, they would not have needed it. The apprehension was done after a legal wiretap and had nothing whatsoever to do with the mail opening in that particular case. We had evidence by the previous solicitor general in this House, and statements by the Prime Minister, that as a direct result of that mail opening the apprehension had taken place.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder how long the hon. member really feels he is entitled to make a preamble. If he has a supplementary question, I suggest he should put it.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, you have to be careful asking questions of a new minister: 1 want to make sure he is fully advised. Can the Solicitor General now advise the House what information was put before the previous Solicitor General with regard to mail openings? What information was put before the Prime Minister with regard to mail openings? Was the information that the mail openings were responsible for the arrest? Was this House misled?


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the initial remark of the hon. member, I want to assure him that I take my ministerial responsibility very seriously indeed. That ministerial responsibility is dated as of February 1 of this year. What happened prior to that time and prior to the nomination of the previous solicitor general is a matter presently under study by the McDonald commission. The allegation the hon. member has brought to our attention is, again, a matter that was brought forward in evidence before the McDonald commission. I suggest to the hon. member that he not only rely on his interpretation of a reporter's interpretation of the evidence, but that he read the transcript. I point out to him that the transcript of Sergeant Pollock's evidence comprises 30 pages of yesterday's proceedings. I suggest he familiarize himself with those proceedings before making any sort of allegations in this
Oral Questions
House, if he is to discharge his responsibilities as a private member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Solicitor General to clarify his last answer. Is it his position that he will not be informing himself of anything that has occurred previously in his department, in order to advise this House concerning the political responsibility of the government? Is that precisely what the minister is telling the opposition today?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Of course not, Mr. Speaker.


MCDONALD INQUIRY-REQUEST SOLICITOR GENERAL RECONSIDER EARLIER ANSWER
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Solicitor General. If we agree that we are not to rely merely on press reports of what is happening in a couple of judicial inquiries in respect of our search and our responsibility in this House to get this information, obviously this is an added burden and responsibility on us.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Obviously, it is our responsibility to ask the minister these questions so that we can receive the truth in this House. Will the Solicitor General reconsider the rather inflexible attitude which he has just displayed, so that we can ask him these questions in the House about this important matter and not have to rely on what is happening in a judicial inquiry?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: No, Mr. Speaker.


KEABLE INQUIRY-INQUIRY WHETHER NEW SOLICITOR GENERAL WILL FOLLOW POLICY OF HIS PREDECESSOR
René Matte: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Solicitor General.
Can the new Solicitor General tell us whether he intends to follow the same policy as his predecessor with regard to the stand to be taken on the summons and requests of the Keable inquiry?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. In fact, I had hoped that the hon. member would realize that I should analyse each summons before making a specific decision on what I am being asked. Generally speaking, I do intend to follow the policy of my predecessor with regard to such requests as I feel exceed the mandate of the Keable inquiry.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, can the minister say whether he will accept to clear up completely the reasons which led the
80031-18Vi

February 3, 1978
Oral Questions
RCMP to act illegally under the circumstances that have already been revealed, and will he also accept to throw light on the responsibility of the RCMP agents provocateurs in the infamous October 1970 crisis?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reflect at greater length on the question of the hon. member. Naturally, I am not familiar enough with the matter to give him a complete answer, but, generally speaking, I believe that most of the topics he has brought to our attention are now being examined by the McDonald Commission. I am totally confident that the latter will be able to assume its full responsibilities under its terms of reference.


THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. In connection with the signature which was applied a couple of days ago to Bill 101 by the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec, after a delay of approximately five months, at which time he affixed his signature to the French version of Bill 101, was the Government of Canada consulted by the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec as to the course that should be followed? Was there any discussion between the government of Canada and the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec in connection with this matter?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I made a quick check on that point this morning. To my knowledge the answer is no, there has been no such consultation or discussion between the government and the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec. That is the result of a quick check. If further investigation reveals that I am incorrect, I will tell the House.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec constitutionally occupies a dual position as a representative of the Crown and is reponsible to the Government of Canada which appointed him, does the Acting Prime Minister not think the Government of Canada, under the law which provides for bilingualism in every part of Canada, should have made it clear to the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec that the course he was following was one which was satisfying Mr. Levesque but was a denial of the entire consitutional basis of this country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would not undertake to accept that view. The Lieutenant Governor of Quebec is an experienced person with long service in that particular post. I am sure he acted with full knowledge of the consequences of his actions and his constitutional position. To my knowledge, we have not had any contact or discussion with him as to how he ought to proceed.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am always impressed by the hon. minister when he answers a question and when he speaks in the House. I ask him this simple question: Does he not think the Government of Canada owed a duty to the whole of Canada to take a view different from that expressed by Premier Levesque and apparently accepted by Mr. Lapointe in correspondence, was what took place proper and appropriate? Surely the Government of Canada should have followed the course other governments had followed in the past when lieutenant governors act contrary to what is expected in a national sense, namely, the government steps in. Is this another example of the Government of Canada having a sham fight with Premier Levesque?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker; the fight is quite real.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BILINGUALISM
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. It concerns the recent resignation of the minister's bilingualism co-ordinator in Ontario, Mr. Richard Fitzgerald, who charged at the time of his quitting that the lack of public policy in dealing with ethnic groups is resulting in a waste of funds and an unfair allocation of money: in fact, he suggested that this money is being used to re-elect Liberals, to the detriment of the minority it is supposed to serve.
When the minister's undersecretary appeared before the standing committee last November 30, in response to a question posed by me he said:
The way I have operated is to seek my minister's approval for priorities and then decide to discriminate in favour of the issue.
Can the minister give an uncategorical assurance that he or his office at no time during the drafting or implementation of funding programs under his department for minority groups or citizen participation gave an implied or direct indication to his officials that the impact of such funding upon the Liberal party's fortunes should be a consideration in its allocation?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, 1 can give the hon. member that assurance. I met with the public servant in question after he tendered his resignation to explore with him the reasons for it, and indeed we discussed policy matters. But at no time in our conversation did he raise the kind of matter which was referred to in the press and to which the hon. member has now referred.
When I read those press reports, obviously I was disturbed by their import. I instructed my officials to get in touch with him to find out if there was specific evidence to support such allegations, if indeed he made such allegations. I know my
February 3, 1978

officials have been in touch with him; I believe they wrote to him the day before yesterday. I am awaiting any specific information which would help me to track down such cases, if indeed there are any. I can assure the hon. member there has never been any instruction, implied or otherwise, on my part that grants or awards should be given on the basis he suggested.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In view of the fact that the minister indicated at the meeting early in December that he would supply to members of the committee a clear indication of the nature of the projects that have been funded, and a further elaboration on the criteria-something that has not yet been received by the committee members-and because during the month of December, when the minister announced his policy for aid to Francophones, there was a noticeable lack of either prior consultation or, in effect, acceptance by the umbrella organization, the Federation of Francophones of Quebec, could the minister indicate if his department is still bypassing this organization in the allocation of grants, and whether any steps are being taken to effect meaningful, ongoing consultation and co-ordination in this important program?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I think three questions are contained in the hon. member's question. 1 will try to answer each one of them. Of course, decisions about grants are made within the framework of the government; they are not made by the organizations which consult with the government. Second, there has been a continuing effort to seek consultation in this area, particularly over the summer months when we were preparing the proposals which 1 announced before Christmas. There has been a constant effort to obtain the co-operation of La Federation Francophone hors Quebec in the elaboration of these programs, and for reasons which they have expressed, with which I am unhappy, they decided not to take part in the process of consultation.
Third, I should indicate that in terms of the elaboration of the criteria to which the hon. member referred, criteria have been established for a considerable period of time for the official languages minority group program. What I have suggested is that it might be useful to develop those criteria further, to elaborate on them and to find additional criteria for the funding of groups. So there are criteria already available. It has been my hope that through the process of consultation we might be able to improve on those criteria to further assist the groups.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Communications. I ask the minister whether she is aware of the fact that last night, in
Oral Questions
Longlac, Ontario, officials of her department, aided by the RCMP, seized the transmitting equipment of the Northern Access network. This was done on the eve of French language television being put on the air for the first time in Longlac, something which the CBC has promised for many years but never delivered. Will the minister instruct her officials to stop this practice of harassment against these citizens living in an isolated region of Canada, and can she tell the House what action is proposed to help Northern Access to become technically certified and then licensed?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of these actions which took place last night, but 1 expect the only grounds on which such seizure of equipment could take place would be that the equipment of the persons or firm in question was not up to the standard required by the department. However, 1 will inquire immediately into this situation to see what really happened and for what reasons.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that negotiations between the railway brotherhoods and railway management broke down yesterday after a period of negotiation, and in view of the fact that the unions have asked the minister to appoint a commissioner in this matter, can he tell the House whether he will do so, what the duties of Mr. Kelly are, and what his status is in his movement from here to Montreal? Also, can the minister tell the House whether he has held discussions with the railroads and the unions on this matter?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is aware, Mr. Kelly is highly experienced, especially in railway negotiations, so no doubt he has been in discussion with both management and labour. On the railways, his function is, of course, to go to Montreal to try to achieve a settlement by bringing the parties together. I sincerely hope he can accomplish it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: In view of the fact that the issues which caused the breakdown in the negotiations are confined to the totally inadequate response of the companies on fringe benefits, nothing for those who are on pension and, what is most serious, the whole matter of the railways' attempt to contract out-which has to do with job security-will the minister be making representations through other ministers or the government as a whole to the railway management? Also, since I appreciate that he must maintain some element of neutrality and impartiality, will he ask the Minister of Transport, rather than my chicken-plucking friend from St. John's West, to call upon the Canadian National Railways and Canadian Pacific

February 3, 1978
Oral Questions
Railway management to make improvements in benefits for their pensioners and to cease and desist from attempts to contract out work, particularly with respect to maintenance of way, and if they will negotiate-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, no doubt the hon. member's message is getting through, but so far as 1 am concerned I would not maintain the position of neutrality which the hon. member advises me to maintain.


B.C.-REQUEST FOR PROGRESS REPORT ON LABOUR DISPUTE
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that there has been a long and unpleasant strike in British Columbia, involving the management and employees of British Columbia Tel, and in view of the fact that rumours are circulating that the strike has either been settled or is on the verge of settlement, can the minister report to the House on the situation?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This is a happy occasion for me because I am advised that there is every expectation that a settlement of that bitter dispute will be reached. There are still things to be worked out in the work agreement area. I will be in the hon. member's city tomorrow, and I will be in a position to make a final assessment of how close to conclusion the settlement is, but I am confident that the matter can be settled.


John Allen Fraser: Can the minister give us his assurance that in any discussions he will have-I refer especially to complications which might still exist with respect to working out back to work arrangements-he will follow the advice he has been taking lately, and the position which I have always taken, that politicians refrain from commenting until the delicate negotiations are completed?


John Carr Munro: There is no question about it, Mr. Speaker.


WHEAT-SALE AT BELOW COST OF PRODUCTION-DELAY IN SHIPPING
Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Yesterday the minister confirmed the worst fears of the prairie grain farmers, that not only are we sold out of wheat this year at below the cost of production but also at below the initial price, which means no payments to farmers next spring. At a time when wheat prices are steadily rising, and with the revelation that public money will be required to balance the pool account for wheat, will the minister now have the Auditor General report on Canadian

Wheat Board accounts, especially in view of the suspiciously large wheat payment now in the mail in this election year to a quarter of a million producers?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it is really astonishing how the hon. member can launch an attack against the Canadian Wheat Board and combine it with the fact that the government has to its credit the holding of the initial price at higher levels than we considered safe at the time we set them. It is well known that that was the case. We did that for a variety of reasons, including the fact that we wanted to take the cost of production into account, the fact that with the stabilization plan we knew there was an offset in any case, and that with international agreement discussions forthcoming we wanted to be sure that the world would recognize we did not believe a price below $3 a bushel for our wheat was adequate.
Notwithstanding that, at that time the Canadian Wheat Board continued to compete vigorously for markets, using its best judgment, and if the hon. member really means to attack the board, its process and its judgment, like so many members of his party are apt to do, let him say so clearly. The board used its best judgment and it made sales, while some of the hon. member's colleagues-including premiers who are members of his party in other parts of the country-attacked the board for not being vigorous enough. The Canadian Wheat Board is, in fact, setting a record in terms of sales.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Frank Fletcher Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, the minister's flippant answer does not bother me, but I wish he would show more concern for the well-being of the half million people on the prairies who depend on the grain industry for their livelihood.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Fletcher Hamilton: As the minister continually blames unreliable vessel arrivals for the annual pile-up of shipping in Vancouver, which is once again costing farmers millions of dollars in demurrage charges and is jeopardizing our growing Asian trade, does the minister still get his Asian shipping intelligence from our good friends in a downtown Chinese laundry?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, again the hon. member seems to neglect the fact that with $200 million going out in final payments and with a probable payment under the stabilization plan, we have done a great deal to safeguard the income of farmers. The lack of logic in his position is apparent when he talks about demurrage charges being a worry to the farmer. In fact, when there is a deficit in the pool, it should be obvious even to the hon. member that that payment falls to the government, rather than to the farmer. The truth is that there was a delay in the arrival of ships.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto Emil Lang: Hon. members from the Tory party, including the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, do not seem to realize that if there is a deficit in the pool, additional costs by way of demurrage obviously fall to the government, which pays the deficit; so it is not upon the farmer.


An hon. Member:: It is on the taxpayer.


Otto Emil Lang: I agree that it is on the taxpayer. At last the Conservatives realize that. I wish they would recognize that generally, including when they attack the user-pays policy and other sensible policies aimed at bringing about productivity increases in this country.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Did the government formally notify the Soviet Union, as we are required to do under clause 4 of article 5 of the treaty governing the return of objects launched into space, and have the Soviets responded in the manner they were obliged to do if we so informed them that an object of a hazardous and deleterious nature had crashed in our territory?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions between officials of the Department of External Affairs and the Soviet government to determine the consequences of this.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: That is not quite an answer to the question I asked. I asked if we formally notified them under the treaty. Discussions are a different thing. Has the Soviet Union asked that the debris be returned to the Soviet Union, and is the minister aware that if we fail to notify them under the treaty, and if they do not make a spontaneous request for the return of the debris, we may well forfeit our chance of having them pay the expenses of the search?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not believe the treaty has been exercised in that manner.

[ Translation]


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Communications.
Considering that several isolated areas in northern Ontario which are not serviced by the French networks are interested in the kind of television programs mentioned earlier by my colleague from Thunder Bay, would the minister be prepared
Oral Questions
to make a statement on motions to explain the policy she intends to follow concerning that kind of programming?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, the programs which are available in the region are not broadcast under a licence. The policy is already well established; anyone who wishes to broadcast television programs in a given area must appear before the CRTC to request a broadcasting licence. I will look further into the specific case mentioned by the hon. member to see if something can be done to make television more readily available to people who do not yet enjoy that service.


INDUSTRY
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Has the minister had any discussions with the automobile manufacturers he mentioned yesterday about doing a reasonable amount of, or even doing any, research and development in Canada?
Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have encouraged and urged the automobile industry to do more research and development in Canada.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. Is there a vacancy at the deputy minister, or associate deputy minister level, in his department concerning the industrial development and research branch and, if there is, will it be filled very shortly?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is a vacancy there. The deputy minister interviewed several prospective applicants this week and we hope the position will be filled within the next week or two.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. It has just been brought to my attention that late last year the minister's

February 3, 1978
Oral Questions
department ordered the Friendly Family Farms eviscerating plant at Steinbach, Manitoba, to burn $15,000 worth of plastic bags because there were no French markings on them. I ask the minister why this burning was ordered and why the bags were not allowed to be used, in light of the fact that the company's product is marketed only in western Canada.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of this and I was not aware that any order would have to be issued, because in other cases where this situation has been brought to our attention, permission has been given to use unilingual bags in unilingual areas. I will certainly check it out and report back, because I do not think there should be that kind of waste. If bags can be used, and if there is no need for them to have bilingual labels, they are going to be used in strictly unilingual areas.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Last week there was a meeting of federal and provincial deputy ministers of social services. Can the minister inform the House if any decision was made at that meeting as to the funding of social services? Did provincial officials bring to the attention of the minister's officials the great difficulties caused to the provinces because of the cutback in funds in relation to the amounts offered originally by the federal authority under proposed block funding arrangements for social services?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, 1 cannot give the result of the meeting of deputy ministers but I can assure the House that no decision has been made yet since the ministers have to decide. Earlier this week I wrote to all my provincial counterparts asking them if they would accept March 6 and 7 as appropriate dates to hold a federal-provincial meeting on social services to know if we might come to some agreement, something I am looking forward to. The $132 million which had to be frozen for a year was an additional amount provided in the initial offer. Unfortunately it has been frozen because of budget restraints that we saw fit to impose.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, since the federal-provincial conference has been postponed, is the minister still planning to introduce in the House at some time in April a new social services legislation?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, there must be some misunderstanding. The meeting I am supposed to have with my counterparts has never been postponed. The date I have indicated is that which my counterparts have requested. I am looking forward to this first meeting, which, depending on the general

consensus of opinion, will determine whether the status quo will be maintained, or whether I shall have the honour to introduce a new legislation.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Is the minister aware of the economic blackmail statement made by the chairman of the board of Northern Telecom, Mr. Scrivener, who said that Northern Telecom would hire more workers if Bell Canada is allowed to increase its residential rate by 20 per cent and its business rate by 28 per cent? That is the largest increase Bell has ever requested. If the minister is aware of this, would he indicate whether he is prepared to recommend to his cabinet colleagues that the millions of dollars in tax concessions provided to Northern Telecom in the last budget, ostensibly to create jobs-which is not being done-will be terminated immediately?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I was not aware of any statement made by the chairman of Northern Telecom and that our tax system is not of such a nature as to permit us to discriminate at will against any Canadian corporation.


David Orlikow: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that Northern Telecom laid off 1,000 workers in the minister's province last year, and in view of the fact they have announced the lay-off of another 280 employees in Montreal and about 100 in Brantford, would the minister reconsider the easy position he continues to take with this company which has no intention of increasing its work force in Canada?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the tax incentives which a number of corporations are receiving because of the investments they make in specific areas do not compel them to maintain the same number of job opportunities in other areas or other plants in Canada. The law is there and exists for all industries in Canada, and those industries which qualify under the income tax legislation which the House adopted last December are entitled to these benefits. Under these circumstances, there is nothing we can do on the spur of the moment or following a bad statement made by a corporation official.



February 3, 1978


THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to direct a question to the Deputy Prime Minister supplementary to that put by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. Is the Minister of Justice or the Department of Justice considering the question of the propriety of the signature, on the second language copy of Bill 101, of the Quebec legislature, its having been affixed after the proclamation of the original bill, and whether the signature at that late date has any effect whatsoever with respect to the position of the propriety of Bill 101?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Department of Justice will consider the question put by the hon. member. To my knowledge, it has not been discussed by the government. But these facts will probably be considered by the Department of Justice and it is probable they will conclude by forming some opinion.


Walter David Baker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Given the position that the government has taken previously with respect to litigants under Bill 101, that it is proper to intervene and assist any Canadian involved with the bill, could the minister take up with the Department of Justice the question of what effect this late signing of the second language copy of the bill will have on litigants who are before the courts on a case decided prior to the rather tardy signing of the second language copy of the bill? This is a very important question as to the issue of Bill 101 and all that flows therefrom.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is raising valid questions as to the effect this development may have on litigants. My own mind is teeming with ideas on the subject, but as a non-lawyer I would hesitate to express them.


PRIVILEGE
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege relates to the astounding and unprecedented statement made a few moments ago in the question period by the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais). This certainly reflects on my right to seek information in the House, and reflects on the right of every hon. member of this House to seek information which we not only have the right but also the responsibility to seek. My proposition to you, Sir, is that this reduces the proceedings of this House to an unfunny travesty, and indeed relegates us all to a position of impotence with respect to the truth of important matters which come before the House.
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
I shall be brief, Mr. Speaker, but this is an important matter.
I draw your Honour's attention to a ruling you made in this House many months ago which, even though some of us did not agree with it, nevertheless under the rules of this House we have to and do abide by it. That ruling was to the effect that we cannot ask direct questions of a previous minister of the Crown relating to the affairs of a department or ministry when that particular person was the responsible minister in this House. Presumably the logic behind Your Honour's ruling was that there always has to be a minister or acting minister of the Crown dealing with the affairs of a department, and therefore, if questions are to be asked, they should be asked of the present, not the previous minister.
I draw your attention today, Sir, to the very serious implications of what we have heard from the brand new Solicitor General. First, he does not not intend to answer in this House any questions relating to the affairs of his ministry prior to his appointment on February 2, 1978. Second, he does not intend to discuss or give any information to this House about matters which are the subject matter of two separate judicial inquiries outside this House which relate to very important matters, and about which some of us feel the correct and true information cannot be drawn out in the way both of those inquiries may be conducted at the moment.
Third, on the advice and counsel of this government, no political party is permitted to obtain representation before the one judicial inquiry over which the government has control. Not only is this an effective gag on political parties and reduces the whole political input into this very important political question to an absolute zero, but, more important, we have a minister in this House who says he is not responsible for what happened before February 2, and is not going to discuss it with us.
Where are we headed, Sir? I will be brief and I will be glad to make a written submission or perhaps a more extended submission, as I am sure many other hon. members will want to at a later date, if Your Honour wishes to reserve judgment on this matter. Surely, Sir, your original ruling is wrong or the minister is wrong. It is as simple as that. There can be no other choice. If we cannot ask this minister about matters prior to his appointment-and that is the very substance, basis, and essence of Your Honour's ruling-then where do we go? There is a void. It reduces the proceedings of this House to a travesty. It further reduces the whole proceedings of this House to a state of impotence on an important political matter regarding which we deserve and have every responsibility to seek information.
I suggest to you, Sir, that if this minister is starting off on that track he had better resign, or else the rules must be changed immediately so that we can bring this House of Commons back to the proper type of forum we have every right to expect it to be.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I should like to second the remarks of the hon. member for

February 3, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) concerning what is a fundamental question of privilege.
It is my capacity and every member's capacity in this House not to represent ourselves but to represent our constituents. When we come to this place we assume an obligation to ask questions of a responsible government about matters that come before it from day to day, or matters that we may learn about that had come before it previously. The opposition cannot always know what occurred months ago. But when a ministry changes, surely it is a fundamental principle of this place that the minister is not responsible for what happened with regard to his predecessor. Surely it is fundamental to the practices and procedures of the British House of Commons that that minister should inform himself so our constituents can be informed as to the political responsibility for matters that have gone before.
The answers given to questions which I raised today, Mr. Speaker, are mindboggling concerning the conduct of business in this place. I have not had a chance to check the blues, so I am going to paraphrase the answer that was given, but I certainly came to the conclusion from the answer given that he will not comment on matters before the commission, and that he will not inform himself on matters that have occurred in the past with respect to his predecessor.


An hon. Member:: Precisely.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: That is the most dangerous kind of answer and I must say it is the most dangerous way for the new minister to assume his new responsibilities. Surely if that is the kind of left foot the minister is going to put forward, it would be best for him not to sign a lease for his office or purchase any new furniture because he will not be occupying it for long.
The minister must accept his responsibility to inform himself and advise members of this House as to the political accountability of his office, and that includes his predecessor. If he is unable to recognize his duty and obligations, I suggest that a ruling be made in this House as to his responsibility respecting our practices and procedures here in answering questions concerning activities which have occurred in the past.
This is a vital and important matter to the House. It could reduce the question period to a travesty, and if he continues to take that position, Mr. Speaker, I suggest he is degrading the parliamentary process to an incredible degree. I am not suggesting that you make a ruling on this now but perhaps you would like to have something in more detail with more research undertaken on the subject. I will be happy to provide that if I am given the opportunity.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, of course 1 am interested in the comments made by both hon. gentlemen opposite. They do indeed deal with very important subjects. However, 1 think there is evidently some misunderstanding on the part of the hon. gentlemen opposite.

There are two aspects to this question. The first one is whether I am in any way obligated during the question period to reply to questions in any form they may be. As I understand the rules, there is no obligation on the part of Ministers of the Crown to reply to questions that are raised. Second is the question of my responsibilities to the portfolio that has been conferred upon me.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: To tell the truth.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I have indicated to the hon. gentlemen that I take those responsibilities very seriously and they indeed include actions that took place prior to my nomination. In terms of my own ministerial responsibilities relating to any actions they commence as of February 1, the date of my appointment. With regard to providing information to hon. members, I would have to analyse each and every question that was put prior to my nomination in order to ascertain whether the information can be provided.
The decision which I have made that I will not reply to questions relating to matters presently before the Royal Commission which has been set up by this government-


An hon. Member:: Stonewalling.


Jean-Jacques Blais: -at the request of the opposition, Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Let us do away with the House of Commons and democracy.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker-


Walter David Baker: It is a pretty black day for you.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully and patiently to the hon. gentlemen. I wish they would offer me the same courtesy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Jacques Blais: The McDonald inquiry is studying certain issues and matters within very wide terms of reference. It is for that commission to deal with those issues. At the request of the opposition the government set up that commission. I am not going to be led by the opposition to comment on a day-to-day basis on evidence which is adduced before that commission. It would be usurping the function of the commission if I qualified comments made before it respecting the validity or invalidity of one statement or the other. Surely that is part of the process of the investigation itself.
I will, of course, completely inform myself of the proceedings before the commission. Eventually, and I hope soon, there will be recommendations made by the commission, and decisions will be required by this government relating to those recommendations in order for us to take actions which will be encumbent upon us as a result of their conclusions. Until such time as a report is received from the commission, Mr. Speak-
February 3, 1978

er, I will not comment, nor will I offer any judgment relating to the value of the evidence or indeed the completeness of it.
In relation to my own responsibilities and the discharge of my duties, in response to the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) prior to answering his question, I expressed amazement that although he was making very serious allegations relating to certain statements that have been made, he evidently had not informed himself of the evidence that has been adduced before that commission. I am not saying to the hon. members that they ought not to make themselves completely familiar with the evidence before that commission and make representations to the government; I am just saying that I am not accepting as my responsibility a role as commissioner or counsel before that commission or adviser to the commissioners in some way. I will reply to questions put to me in a way that I feel will discharge the responsibilities I have accepted.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. To a certain extent we are arguing a situation which is hypothetical-


Walter David Baker: It is like the devil, with respect.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Obviously before the matter can be tested questions will have to be put and responses received which will be the subject matter of a specific rather than a general argument. In any event, the matter has now been raised and I am prepared to hear further argument on it. It seems to me that we are talking about problems which are going to arise in the future and how the minister will deal with those questions. The argument I have heard today is not related specifically to answers or positions taken by the minister. I am not going to relate it to a question of privilege. If other members wish to do that today, I am prepared to do it.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to get into this matter until I heard the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) speak.
The Solicitor General in his remarks put forward the position he intends to follow as minister responsible to this House of Commons to report upon the activities of that department over a period of time. His position, Sir, which he has stated as the policy of the government, in summary is the following.
He has made it abundantly clear that he feels no obligation to tell anyone in parliament anything at all about anything that happened in the Department of the Solicitor General under his jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction. He said he believes-


An hon. Member:: That is exactly what he said.


Charles Joseph Clark: He said quite precisely, Mr. Speaker, that there is an ancient parliamentary tradition which allows a minister not to answer questions in the House, and he intends to use that parliamentary tradition not to answer questions which he feels he does not want to answer. That is what he said. It may
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
well be he said that because he received advice from the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Sharp). He got in trouble that way before. That is precisely what he has said. He then went on to
say-


Mr. Sharp:: I was sitting listening to the member.


Charles Joseph Clark: I regret all these interruptions being shouted across the floor. He then went on to say that if he does choose to answer questions put by members of parliament about public business, he is not going to answer relating to matters that occurred before his appointment.


Otto Emil Lang: He said clearly the opposite.


Charles Joseph Clark: As my colleague from Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) pointed out, this raises a very serious question for this House of Commons. We are prevented now by a ruling of Your Honour from questioning the three previous ministers. This minister has now indicated that he does not intend to provide information about what went on in that period. The net result is that the House of Commons is left without an opportunity to get any information from anybody in this House about anything that went on in this matter.
The next limitation that he attached to any question he might answer, or any public information he might choose to give to the representatives of the people on a matter of the utmost seriousness and gravity to the country was that he will not comment on matters that are before a Royal Commission which his government established in part to try to evade the responsibility to answer questions here on the floor of the House of Commons.


Otto Emil Lang: You demanded it.


Charles Joseph Clark: The minister has made his position very clear. He warned us that, even contrary to the practice of his predecessors, he intends to fall back on the idea that he need not answer questions in the House of Commons. It was a very simple, straighforward statement. I give him credit for frankness, even though in my judgment that is an insupportable position for a Solicitor General to take, particularly at this time. He then went on to say that if he does choose to answer, he will restrict himself to things that happened since his appointment.
Finally, he has served notice that he will stonewall and refuse to answer, staying silent in the face of any questions which arise that are being considered by a Royal Commission which this government created in part to avoid the responsibility of having to answer questions in this House of Commons.
This statement of policy by the new Solicitor General is a most inauspicious and dangerous way for him to start on his serious responsibilities, and raises a very serious question of privilege to the House. It is a matter of great surprise to us that this minister would take this position in the early days of his portfolio.

February 3, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
You have asked, Sir, whether there would be more argument later. I think it is clear to say that we on this side would like to reserve our right to continue to comment at a later time and to raise again in much more depth our objections to this most dangerous proposal put forward today by the Solicitor General that will in fact allow him to stay silent in the face of questions in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 want to be fair to those who want to participate in the discussion, but I think the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) pointed out in his last comment that he wants to reserve the right to argue further. All members have said that.
What happened is that the minister in his answers today gave an indication of the manner in which he intends to deal with questions in the future. Whether that has been properly interpreted, properly stated by the minister or properly interpreted by those who have argued on the other side of the House, remains to be seen. I think that is the fact.
The Leader of the Opposition said that he wants to reserve the right to reserve argument. 1 think the opportunities for that argument will present themselves on numerous occasions. Obviously the next time the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) is asked a question can be the next opportunity at which this difficulty is going to arise.
There is no motion at this moment, no specific motion attached to a specific problem. That is my point. It is very difficult for the Chair to rule in the abstract on a declaration of intention.
As all hon. members know, there are circumstances under which ministers may simply take no action in the face of a question. There are others in which answers are not given for reasons stipulated. It would be a very curious and interesting situation if a minister, who in fact does not have an obligation to answer a question, refused to answer a question upon a certain ground, and the argument were then raised that that ground was not well founded. In fact, the ground may not be necessary. These are the kind of abstract arguments with which we are now dealing.
This is a very important point. Obviously it is a matter of great concern to the House. It goes fundamentally to the operation of parliament and the theory of ministerial responsibility.
A good part of the argument relates to whether the minister in fact said he would not answer questions related to previous Solicitors General and, if he did say that, whether he has the right to say it or do it. In fact, no question of that nature was put to the minister today.
That is a very important part of the argument. That is one of the reasons why I say that a specific question, which in fact gives rise to a specific argument and specific motion of privilege, is obviously going to come before us very soon. That is the proper vehicle through which we can argue this matter a little more specifically than we are now doing. We are under

the handicap of arguing in the abstract. I do not think we can do that usefully much longer.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you give reconsideration to the statement that you have just made.
I was more than amazed by what the minister said this morning. I was impressed by what he said when he assumed the portfolio, speaking spontaneously without government intervention. He said that in his position he intended to do everything to clarify and clear up the proclivities- he did not use that word-of his predecessors in office. Today he utters in this House a proposition which means that the House of Commons might as well close down in so far as matters that come under his authority are concerned. One now begins to understand the reason for the merry-go-round in the department of the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais).
You cannot ask A, who knows more than anyone else. I refer to him as A because I do not want to refer to him by his name or constituency, which I do not recall at the moment. Then B comes along and says that he cannot tell us anything that happened under A. Now we have C. He puts before this House-


An hon. Member:: 


John George Diefenbaker: At the rate they are going, it will not be long before we have X, there are so many hopefuls sitting opposite. They can all join in the concealment of facts.
Where is parliament today? We cannot ask this minister. He says he does not know, that he just arrived on the merry-go-round the day before yesterday. He says he cannot answer anything with regard to what happens before the Royal Commission. As far as that Royal Commission is concerned, it was set up last July, but did not convene until late fall. At the rate it is going today, there is one thing about which we can be sure. There will be no information come from that commission until after the election. That apparently is the reason for the delays that have taken place.
We cannot get information there. We cannot ask any questions here. The minister has adopted a stonewalling attitude that was clearly defined and brilliantly spoken of by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence). The rights of parliament are being tramped on again as they were in 1956.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I had hope for this new minister. I thought in the Post Office Department he was lost with the mail. To hear him make that proposition today shows he is one who learns fast in the position of Solicitor General.
This is not a matter which can be brushed aside as hypothetical. It is here today. If this proposition is accepted by parliament we might as well close down. Indeed, the government wishes we would, so that information might not be
February 3, 1978

procurable in the House of Commons. As somewhat of a student of constitutional development, let me say I have not heard such an outrageous statement made by a minister since the days of the Right Hon. C. D. Howe in 1956.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as you may have noted, I rose at the same moment as did the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) to say something about this very point. It was my thought, when I was getting to my feet, that 1 would simply draw attention to what had been said and reserve the right to raise the matter as a question of privilege some day next week when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is here. That is still my view.
I fully recognize that Your Honour is not in a position to require anyone to answer a question or to make a speech; you can stop us from doing things but you cannot require us to do things. However, it seems to me that the issue raised today is one which calls for a clear statement by the Prime Minister regarding the responsibilities of the new Solicitor General (Mr. Blais), indeed, as to the responsibilities of all ministers.
The Solicitor General did say today he is responsible only as from February 1, 1978. You Honour has frequently told us that we cannot ask former ministers of any department about what went on when they were in charge, and the corollary is that the present minister of any department is responsible for answering questions concerning that department. I dare hope the minister will agree that he slipped a little on that-


An hon. Member:: Wait and see!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am prepared to wait and see, but it came to my ears that his responsibility began only on February 1, 1978. But as I say, I am prepared to let that wait until we have had a chance to read the record.
On the point of whether the Solicitor General is going to answer questions I acknowledge, of course, that any minister has the right any day to refuse to answer a question. But for a minister to stand up and say he does not intend to answer any questions addressed to him in a certain area, no matter what they are, relating to the two commissions which are now sitting-


An hon. Member:: He did not say that!


Stanley Howard Knowles: He said it, and he
admits he said it. There is no question about it. I recognize the minister's right to deal with each question on its merits, but for a minister to tell members of parliament that no matter what questions we ask, if they relate to the McDonald or to the Keable inquiry, he will not answer them, is surely an affront to parliament.
Your Honour has suggested we should wait until some specific case arises. 1 submit there was a specific case today. My hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) asked a question about certain evidence before the McDonald inquiry which, in our view, contradicts what has been said on the floor of this House. Surely we are not to be refused answers in a
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
case like that. In my submission the minister's whole position must be reviewed.
As I say, I recognize that Your Honour cannot require ministers to answer questions but I think the Prime Minister owes it to the House to ensure that the principle of ministerial responsibility is maintained and that the appointment of Royal Commissions will not be used as an excuse for withholding information from this Chamber. I reserve the right to raise the matter as a question of privilege on the Prime Minister's return after we have read the record of today's discussion.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have no machinery whereby I can hear the person who initiated this discussion a second time. I simply say I have no motion before me dealing with a specific question of privilege in relation to events which have taken place today. I do not want to restrict the argument. I understand that this is a matter of great concern. It has been addressed by several members. If there is a desire to deal with the question today and get a decision I must have something specific before me, and I do not.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I find that to some extent the argument has been exaggerated. Every one of us would agree that the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) became responsible for the administration of the department the moment he was sworn in. Otherwise it could be argued that he was responsible prior to that date. I do not think anyone would disagree with me on that point. It is entirely in this context I understood the Solicitor General to use the date February 1. I did not hear him say he felt no responsibility to answer questions relating to the activities of the department prior to February 1. In fact, I heard him say the very opposite, and I believe the record will demonstrate that the Solicitor General did say, when he rose to explain, that he fully intended to do as other ministers do, and as his predecessors did, that is, deal with questions related to past activities of the department. That is the principle under which the government is operating and it is a principle which I understood the Solicitor General to enunciate.


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: You would have to recast the whole sentence to get that meaning.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: What I believe the Solicitor General was getting at-


John George Diefenbaker: Is this the final interpretation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is an interpretation based upon hearing what has been said. It is probable that each of us would benefit from re-reading the transcript. Inasmuch as other members have put foward their interpretations of what has happened, pending a further review it is surely reasonable that members on this side should take advantage of the opportunity to do the same thing, on the understanding, of course, that we might find that the transcript tells us something different.

February 3, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
Let us situate this issue in the context of the questions which have been asked. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has stated, the issue arises in connection with evidence given before the McDonald inquiry. It is true that each day witnesses come before the commission and give evidence. It may be that the evidence given is contradicted by other witnesses the following day, or it may be contradicted by statements made inside this House, or outside it.
It is a fact that the press reported yesterday that certain evidence had been given by the former Commissioner of the RCMP. On the same point, statements were made in the House of Commons by the former solicitor general. This is well known. But is it the job of the House of Commons to examine the credibility of the evidence coming before the McDonald inquiry?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Certainly!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Is it the job of the House of Commons to examine the credibility of the witnesses appearing before the commission? If a former attorney general claims that it is, then he ought to go back to law school. The purpose of the commission is to assemble all the evidence, to hear all the witnesses, including the former solicitor general, and then to reach a conclusion as to what is the credible result.
Hon. members of the opposition are saying that we should transfer the House of Commons, which is a purely political theatre, into a judicial body.


Walter David Baker: Nonsense!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: The House of Commons is the highest court in the land.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is exactly what hon. members opposite are doing.
The same point made today by the Solicitor General was made yesterday. The hon. member for Northumberland-Dur-ham (Mr. Lawrence) asked me to deal with what he described as contradictory evidence given before the McDonald inquiry.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I was referring to the news media.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It was a report in the news media alleging contradictory evidence. In reply to that I said:
It seems to me it is now up to the commission to call the witnesses in the order in which it alone determines, and to determine also the credibility of the evidence that is brought before the commission.
That is the point of the commission, to determine the credibility of evidence and witnesses.


James Aloysius McGrath: How about the House of Commons?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I went on to say the following:
It is certainly not the job of the government or the House of Commons to take over and replace the work of the commission.

That is what I understood when the Solicitor General referred to evidence. He was asserting the same principle, that it was not his responsibility to adjudicate upon the credibility of witnesses or evidence. I agree, and the government agrees, with that position.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have watched a lot of things in the House of Commons, but once in a while a tragedy occurs. A tragedy occurred today when an otherwise distinguished and experienced parliamentarian was placed in a position of defending the indefensible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: A black Friday.


Walter David Baker: The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) has called today a black Friday. This is February 3, 1978, and there is another pipeline bill on the order paper.
The hon. government House leader has said that parliament does not have the right to inquire on a matter which has occupied the attention of Canadians for a considerable period of time.


An hon. Member:: He never said that.


Walter David Baker: That is exactly what he said. On his second day in office, the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) said that he is responsible for past activities of the department, unless they were before a Royal Commission. He will argue that on Monday, Tuesday or whenever this matter will be continued. He is doing two things. He is testing the viability of Your Honour's ruling and the rulings of Your Honour's predecessors with respect to the right of ministers to be questioned about acts or errors of commission or omission. He is testing the viability of that, whether it should be sustained. Also is asking us, as well as the public of Canada, to test that. If that is the position of the government, then Your Honour has to consider in parliament, with its tradition of allowing the questioning of ministers, whether your ruling and the rulings of your predecessors should stand. I do not place it all on Your Honour's shoulders.
Your Honour has said that there is no question before you upon which this matter could be continued. It is important for a question to be before Your Honour and this House so that this matter can be continued. As the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) has said, if we cannot ask ministers the questions we want to put to them, notwithstanding that a matter may be before a judicial inquiry or a Commission, regardless of what we may think of the inquiry, then we are truly gagged, and our rights as members of parliament are badly impaired. If it is allowed to continue in that manner, then parliament will move on and on and cease to be relevant.
There is no one outside this House who can believe, when we face a government in this situation, that we cannot ask ques-
February 3, 1978

tions and, if we ask them, the government cannot answer them or ought not to answer them, especially in the circumstances raised by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence). This matter has to be looked at seriously.
If Your Honour finds there is a prima facie case with respect to the matter raised today by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham, I would like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham:
That the matter raised in the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
The matter is now before Your Honour, and I think it is time the House of Commons and Your Honour dealt with it appropriately.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member is attempting to set the matter in that context. He will recognize at once that the particular form of words he is endeavouring to use in this motion have been ruled out of order on numerous occasions in the past, namely, that the matter referred to, or described by an hon. member, be referred to a standing committee. As I have attempted to say to the House on several occasions earlier this afternoon, the difficulty is that that is not a specific definition upon which a committee can act. 1 understand what the hon. member is attempting to do.
I do not think we ought to fear that the matter cannot be continued. Every participant in this discussion today has sought the opportunity to address the House with more detailed argument at a later date after examining the transcript. That has arisen on both sides of the House. That was put forth by the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), as well as by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
The hon. Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) made remarks indicating that we ought to check the transcript. There seems to be a great difference of opinion as to what the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) said today, and that ought to be clarified. If, after an examination of the transcript, and after consideration of it, there is a considered motion which hon. members want to put before the House for argument at a later time, then I surely give to the House the right to carry that forward at a later date. Any motion ought to be carefully considered after examination of the transcript. I leave it open for the House to do that at a later time.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: Statements by ministers.
Northern Pipeline Act


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to this matter on the order paper, statements by ministers. I understand the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) has scheduled a press conference for later today with respect to the pipeline legislation which appears on the order paper and which he intends to introduce and be given first reading today.
I would not want to put the minister in a position where we would engage in a protracted question period with respect to a statement by him, which a section of the rules would allow, because I do not want to delay him in any way. Given that undertaking, I wonder whether the minister might be prepared to make a general statement in the House now, prior to meeting with the press, in order to set before the House of Commons on the first possible occasion the things he will tell the press outside about a bill which will be introduced a little later today. I do that in the hope that my hon. friend would see the propriety of telling us, in a statement in the House under the conditions I have set forth, what he intends to say outside the House after he has introduced the bill.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: May I say, in reply to the question, that it was not my intention to make a statement. The bill will be given first reading and it will be available to all members of the House. When that occurs, I intend to meet the press and tell them what will be known to everybody at that time, namely, what is in the bill.


NORTHERN PIPELINE ACT
Allan Joseph MacEachen: for leave to introduce Bill C-25, to establish the Northern Pipeline Agency, to facilitate the planning and construction of a pipeline for the transmission of natural gas from Alaska and Northern Canada and to give effect to an agreement between Canada and the United States of America on principles applicable to such a pipeline and to amend certain acts in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the second time? At the sitting of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

February 3, 1978
Order Paper Questions


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is there any reason why copies of this b'll could not be distributed to hon. members immediately?


Walter David Baker: I think the suggestion is an excellent one and there would be agreement to it from our party, particularly in view of the statement of the minister that copies of the bill would be available immediately before he goes out to meet the press.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure that we are in possession of a sufficient number of copies to fulfill that request, but certainly in principle there is no objection from the Chair and no objection is forthcoming from the House. There will be the earliest possible distribution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was told earlier they would be printed and ready.


Walter David Baker: So was I.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could agree to pass the motion to establish the special committee. I understand that all members are agreed that we could deal with the motion in my name to establish the special committee so that we can select the members for that committee.


Walter David Baker: That is agreeable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER NORTHERN GAS PIPELINE LEGISLATION
Allan Joseph MacEachen: That a special committee, consisting of fourteen members to be named at a later date, be appointed to consider legislation concerning a northern gas pipeline; and
That the said committee have all the powers given to standing committees by Standing Order 65.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 352, 362, 727, 1,021, 1,028 and 1,035.


Mr. McCain: 1.	What is the total fixed and capital cost of making and putting on a one hour programme by CBC?
2.	What is the administrative cost including executive salaries, administrative staff salaries, etc.?
3.	How much does it cost to put on such a programme after it has been produced?
4.	How much revenue from advertising does CBC receive for such a programme for each of the different viewing times i.e. prime time, day time, etc?
5.	What does CBC pay to a sports association or individual team in order to televise their games?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. The nature of the question is so general that to derive a single figure would involve the use of statistics based on all program activity from, for example, in radio, a record show hosted by a staff announcer to a large orchestral-choral production, and in television from programs and program material that come to the corporation free of charge or for a token fee to a ballet production such as The Nutcracker. Average hourly program costs for local and network programs, English and French, radio and television, are set out in detail in the annual report for 1976-77.
2 and 3. It is not possible to relate these costs to a hypothetical individual program. The averages referred to in part 1 reflect all administrative costs related to the production of those programs. As for the costs of distribution, transmission and where applicable, sales, total amounts for these categories are contained in the CBC's annual report for 1976-77.
4.	It is not possible to relate these costs to a hypothetical program. In any event, CBC sells commercial time not by the time of day but by the type of program and the anticipated audience. For example, the following are the costs of 30-second commercials carried in sample programs on the full CBC English television network: Class AA (Front Page Challenge), $5,120; Class A (King of Kensington), $4,330; Class B (Beachcombers), $3,720; Class C (Saturday 5-6 p.m.), $2,190; Class D (Celebrity Cooks), $955. In addition, the following figures represent gross advertising revenue received by CBC during the fiscal year 1976-77.
($000's)
Radio	376
Television	81,553
Total	81,929
5.	Payments vary according to the leagues or teams involved. It has not, however, been customary to require the CBC to provide such details of its internal management and administration as the contractual arrangements with business organizations. The background to this custom is explained in detail in the reply to question No. 2,530, May 22, 1975.

February 3, 1978


Mr. Symes: From October 1972 to date, what was the total amount of funds spent by the
(a)	Department of Fisheries and the Environment and its agencies (b) Department of Supply and Services and its agencies in the Constituency of Sault Ste. Marie?


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by the Departments of Fisheries and the Environment and Supply and Services as follows: (a) From October, 1972 to October 31, 1977: $20,253,668. (b) The Department of Supply and Services has contracted for $537,000 in Sault Ste. Marie on behalf of other government departments. Contracting activity by regional offices is not available prior to April 1, 1976.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation authorized to run popularity polls on (a) political parties, whether (i) federal (ii) provincial (b) the Parti Quebecois and, if so, in each case, how does it proceed and how many people are questioned?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: a comprehensive information service should periodically include reports of public opinion polls on a variety of questions. The CBC from time to time makes use, in its information programs, of the results of public opinion polls conducted by poll organizations independently of the corporation. Occasionally, such use is supplemented by surveys commissioned by the CBC. In doing so the CBC proceeds under the objects and powers set out in section 39 of the Broadcasting Act. There is no fixed procedure for carrying out such surveys: the number of people questioned, the areas of the country covered, the length of the interview, the types of questions asked-these and other features of the survey are all dependent on the particular question being investigated and the particular type of program being planned. In most cases the surveys are conducted by independent companies with CBC involvement in the survey design. In all cases the highest professional research standards are observed.


Mr. Rynard: What is the proposed date of construction of a new lock at Port Severn (Lock 45) in view of the capacity of the new marine railway at the Big Chute on the Trent-Severn Waterway?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Parks Canada's capital forecast projects fiscal year 1981-82 for commencement of a new lock at Port Severn (Lock 45).


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	On December 6, 1977, did the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce receive applications for financial assistance under the Company
Order Paper Questions
Development Programme from the (a) Province of Quebec (b) Constituency of Richmond and, if so, how many?
2.	Under the same programme, did the Department grant subsidies to companies in (a) Quebec (b) the Constituency of Richmond and, if so, in what amount?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: 1. Under the Enterprise Development Program, during the period from April 1, 1977 to December 6, 1977, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce: (a) Received 109 applications for assistance from companies located in the Province of Quebec, (b) Received one application for assistance from a company located in the Constituency of Richmond.
2. Under the Enterprise Development Program, during the period from April 1, 1977 to December 6, 1977: (a) Fifty-one contributions aggregating $15,784,017 were approved in favour of companies located in the Province of Quebec, (b) One contribution for $10,500 was approved for a company located in the Constituency of Richmond.


Mr. Patterson: For each year since 1968, what amount was spent by the government on flood control programmes in the Constituency of Fraser Valley East?


Mr. Mike Landers (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Environment)):: Federal expenditures for construction and site supervision under the Fraser River Flood Control Program for each year since 1968 in the constituency of Fraser Valley East are: 1968-69, -; 1969-70, -; 1970-71, $517,500; 1971-72, $607,322; 1972-73, $721,500; 1973-74, $2,176,675; 1974-75, $2,234,272; 1975-76, $524,877; 1976-77, $738,875; 1977-78, $500,000 (anticipated expenditure). These figures do not include the costs of design and administration as such expenditures are not normally made within the constituency. Flood control projects covered by these expenditures are Agassiz, Harrison Mills, Chilliwack, Matsqui, the Vedder River, Abbotsford at the mouth of the Sumas River, Nicomen Island and Seabird Island.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 915 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions listed by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House

February 3, 1978
Order Paper Questions
that question No. 915 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier): Since the beginning of the Programme in 1970, what was the total amount spent in support of the Secretary of State's Language Programmes Branch for (a) bilingualism in education (b) bilingualism in public administration (c) bilingualism in the private sector (d) language acquisition development?
Return tabled.

[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 1,020?
[ Text]


Mr. Rynard: 1.	Was any agreement made with the Province of Ontario for the loss of electric power due to the procedures necessary in the building of the new marine railway at the Big Chute on the Trent-Severn Waterway and, if so, what was it?
2.	Was the electric power cut off due to such procedures and, if so, for how many days?
3.	Was any compensation paid and, if so (a) to whom (b) by whom?


Yvon Pinard: 1. No, not as between the federal government and the province of Ontario. However, an agreement was made between Ontario Hydro and the contractor performing the work, to have the hydroelectric power facility at Big Chute shut down during the construction of the lower coffer dam.
2.	While the power facility itself was shut down for a period of four weeks and two days, hydro power was not cut off in the area but was supplied by the provincial hydroelectric grid system.
3.	Yes: (a) to Ontario Hydro; (b) by the contractor.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, February 1, 1978, consideration of the motion of Mr. LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent) that Bill C-2, respecting the administration and development of certain fishing and recreational harbours in Canada, be read the third time and do pass.
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday when I called it six o'clock I was expressing concern, along with other members of the House, regarding the nebulous assurances of the minister and the motherhood protection that he will be able to provide under Bill C-2, as has been demonstrated under Bill C-38. In light of the fact that the clock now shows three minutes to one o'clock and that I would welcome the opportunity to speak more fully on Bill C-2 without the interruption of the clock, may I now call it one o'clock?


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Robert Hylton Brisco: The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) made reference to the fact that the department will not abandon wharf facilities and that, indeed, there have been very few abandonments of wharf facilities. I hope that the assurances given by the hon. member, who is the parliamentary secretary to the minister, have some ring of truth to them because the record is very sad in terms of the management of wharves and other similar facilities while they were under the care of the Ministry of Transport and the Department of Public Works. If nothing else, at least now we have some cohesion being demonstrated.
I also expressed concern about the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni regarding remote wharves on the west coast and the east coast, and the fact that there will be an opportunity for fishermen to manage these wharf facilities and small craft harbour facilities themselves. That is fine, but what assurances are there that there will be regular maintenance? Who will cover the cost of that regular maintenance? What assurance is there that there will be an ongoing inspection of these facilities?
During the period of time in which we addressed ourselves to this particular bill at the standing committee level, I made reference to the fact that I have some very serious concerns about clause 10 at page five, which deals with enforcement officers. In the bill it is stated that an enforcement officer may be any person who is, in the opinion of the minister, qualified to be so designated, and the minister can furnish that person with a certificate of his designation. It really does not identify the type of person, the role that person is expected to play, or the qualities necessary to carry out that role.
There were the same expressions of concern with regard to the Ocean Dumping Control Act. The minister had the same opportunity to appoint inspectors and other officials on an ad hoc basis without any indication as to what the background of those individuals must be, what their skills and abilities must be, whether they would be political appointments or whether they would be genuine appointments based on some knowledge of what these people were supposed to do. I note that clause remains unchanged.
I note also that in clause 11 on page 6 of the bill there is provision for an enforcement officer not only to board any vessel-which I can accept-or enter any vehicle-which I can accept-but also to enter premises where or in respect of which he reasonably believes there may be evidence of such non-compliance and that he may make any inspection he deems necessary. That is the point about which I am concerned. We have the assurance of the minister in committee that this refers only to the premises or fishing shacks, or what-have-you, immediately adjacent to the harbour. If that is so, why is it not stated in the bill, or does the minister intend to put it in the regulations? I say it is a gross intrusion to allow an enforcement officer, who is not a law officer, to enter the premises of any Canadian citizen. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has said that the government does not belong in the
Fishing and Recreational Harbours
bedrooms of the nation; I say the enforcement officer does not belong on the premises of fishermen. For these reasons I must object to this particular clause, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) expressed some of the same concerns that I have about the bill. For instance, it says that the minister may appoint and fix the remuneration of such officers or employees as he thinks proper for the operation. The first thing that I wonder about is whether the remuneration will be in the same form as that for rural postmasters or postmistresses. Will it be an inconsequential sum to be paid those dedicated people, or will it be payment on the basis of the ability, skill and worth of the individual? On the other hand, will it be the subject of pork-barrelling at a very low level? This gives me great concern, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member for New Westminster told the House that the fishermen's union on the west coast has sent a telegram to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) to delay the bill until they have an opportunity to go before the standing committee. I am surprised that this was not provided for, since the bill goes to the very heart of matters that concern fishermen on both coasts, and in all fairness I think they should have had that opportunity.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that many things in Bill C-2 are good but, like other government legislation, there is much that is questionable. That is why I cannot support the bill. Of course, I do not think that lack of my support will materially affect its passage, but I hope that some of the concerns I have expressed will be noted, and amendments introduced.
I hope that the minister and officials in his department will address themselves to the problems of small craft harbours which in the past have received little federal support. It is all well and good to pay attention to the east and west coast fisheries-that is of the first order and I accept it-but I have pointed out to the minister, as has the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Young) that there are other areas of the country which lie within his jurisdiction and have been ignored up to now.
I should like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on Bill C-2. I have no further comments at this time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to take part in this debate. My colleague, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), speaking in this House on February 1, admirably set forth the major objections we had to the legislation. We are not saying the legislation is all bad; we are saying there are some aspects of it which have adverse implications for a group in which both the hon. member and 1 are very interested, the commercial fishermen on the west coast.
I would have been perfectly satisfied to leave the criticisms advanced by the hon. member to speak for both of us. When the hon. member sat down, however, both the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) and the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Young) proceeded to take him to task for those criticisms. At that time I sought to follow those two hon.

February 3, 1978
Fishing and Recreational Harbours
members but there were a number of others on their feet and I was not able to catch Your Honour's eye. I feel I should now say just a few things about the criticisms those two hon. members have advanced. The House will have noticed, of course, that both are parliamentary secretaries. They probably feel that if they are to earn their additional remuneration from the Crown then they have a task to do. That task seems to be to rise on every occasion to praise their minister, and then to berate the opposition for not hurrying legislation through, irrespective of whether or not it has been given thorough examination. Mr. Speaker, our task is to examine legislation and determine whether it is in the best interests of the people we represent. That is what the hon. member for New Westminster was seeking to do.
Both the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and the hon. member for Niagara Falls endeavoured to make a great deal of the fact that the legislation has been before the House for two years. They accused members of the opposition of filibustering and holding up the legislation, and thus preventing fishermen and users of recreational boats from getting great advantages. As a matter of fact the hon. member for Niagara Falls attacked members on this side because we were not on our feet praising the minister and the legislation he has introduced. Mr. Speaker, we do not need anyone to tell us what our job is with respect to legislation. Our job is to examine it.
Nothing in the passage of this legislation through its various stages would indicate that members on this side of the House have unduly delayed it. It is true the legislation has been on the order paper for two years. It has not been before the House for two years. It was introduced last year and reached the committee stage. If the government had thought it was very important legislation, the House need not have been recessed or prorogued. It could have continued and dealt with that legislation.
When the House reassembled, the opposition parties co-operated with the government to the point where we did not insist that the legislation start all over again. Indeed we agreed that the legislation should be put on the order paper at the stage at which it was when the House recessed, with the result that the legislation started again at the committee stage. If the members will look at it, it is Bill C-2 which is the first piece of legislation on the order paper, because Bill C-l is a pro forma bill. There has been no undue delay. There is no attempt now to delay the bill or to filibuster the bill. But I think that the government, throughout the years I have been here has failed to have a consistent policy with respect to small harbours and ports.
I am not placing the blame on the present minister entirely, Mr. Speaker. He has been endeavouring in the last two or three years to work out a policy, but it has never been clearly formulated and it has never been given enough money to make it an effective program. It is one of the aspects of the govern-

ment's over-all responsibilities, in my opinion, of which no government can really be proud.
In seeking to defend the government's legislation against the criticisms which were advanced by the hon. member for New Westminster, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, speaking in the House on February 1, 1978, as reported at page 2446 of Hansard, put forth some preposterous arguments in defence of this legislation, and as a reason for some of the clauses contained in this measure. For instance the member said:
This type of clause is required so that we are not bound by this legislation as we were by the old Government Harbours and Piers Act under which it was possible to lease facilities only to municipalities, provinces, or shipping companies. Very recently, for example, a fishermen's union local wished to lease a facility on the west coast in a community in my constituency-Sointula.
He goes on later in the statement and says:
But, Mr. Speaker, when a group of fishermen, on their own initiative, wish to take over the management of a small wharf or pier in an isolated area, we are prevented under the present legislation from allowing them to do so. Under the new legislation we shall be able to allow people such as those in a union local to take over a pier and run it to their best advantage-
There are two things wrong with that ridiculous statement. The first is that the government has been leasing wharves on Vancouver Island to individuals for a number of years to my knowledge. It did it because under the old legislation it referred to a person, and a person or persons could lease wharves from the government and they have done so. Secondly if the purpose of this legislation is to give power to lease, to license, or to enter into agreements with respect to these wharves with persons other than the federal government, is because the government wanted to make it possible for a fishermen's union or a co-operative to take over a wharf, all it had to do was amend the original legislation and make that provision specific and clear.
That is not what the provision provides at all. The provision says in clause 8:
The Minister may, subject to the regulations,
(a)	lease any scheduled harbour or any part thereof to any person;
(b)	grant a licence to any person for the use of any scheduled harbour or any part thereof; and
(c)	enter into an agreement with the government of any province or any agency thereof for the occupancy and use of any scheduled harbour or any part thereof.
There is a great deal of difference, Mr. Speaker, from the standpoint of commercial fishermen, between the government leasing or licensing to a municipality, an agency of the provincial government or a fishermen's co-operation or a fishermen's union, and on the other hand leasing which would have been that of government facilities to private entrepreneurs, because as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni himself admitted in his remarks, there is no schedule in this legislation. There is no provision for setting a schedule.
If the government leases one of the government wharves to an agency of a provincial government or a municipality, to a union local or co-operative, then there is some public pressure to keep the schedule of fees at a reasonable figure. But there is no such protection if that government wharf is going to be leased to a private entrepreneur, particularly on Vancouver

February 3, 1978
Island, and certainly in my constituency and as well in the constituency of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. In many cases these wharves are the only places in the community where wharfage facilities are available.
Our complaint is with reference to the commercial fishermen, who, when they return from fishing, must tie up their boats at the wharf after they have unloaded their cargo. It is not a matter of shopping around. If they do not like the schedule of fees they cannot go somewhere else. Whatever fee is charged, that is what they have to pay. If there is no protection and if there is a private entrepreneur, the charge can be exorbitant. The fisherman has no choice but to pay, or do what one or two of the fishermen in my constituency have done, and that is to berth their boats at a wharf a long distance away and drive back and forth. That seems to me totally unfair.
There could be some provision in this legislation to ensure that if the government is going to lease out wharves which have been built by the taxpayers of this country to a private entrepreneur, then either there be some review board with respect to the fees to be charged to those who want to tie up their boats at a wharf, or the right of appeal to some review body who could ensure the fisherman is not being taken advantage of.
As a matter of fact I have watched, in the last ten to 12 years, a steady attempt by the government to avoid its responsibilities with respect to these small harbours. At one time these small harbours were run almost entirely by the government. Little by little the government has been endeavouring to push the responsibility onto someone else, lease out the wharves to someone else, get some municipality to take over the job. I can give the minister a few examples.
In 1968 when we were just into a by-election campaign in my constituency, the then minister of public works, the Hon. Arthur Laing, came to the town of Chemainus where, for years, they had been pointing out that when a storm came from a certain direction, many of their boats were wrecked. They badly needed a breakwater. He agreed that a breakwater would be built. That was a firm commitment.
When I became the member for this constituency, I took it up with him. It was confirmed that the government had agreed to put up a breakwater. Then the government decided to change its policy. The change in policy was that the government would build the breakwater providing the municipality would spend an equal amount putting in marina facilities.
That municipality stretches a long way from the ocean. To ask them to put up SI 'A million in marina facilities to make it possible to provide a service which up to that time the federal government had been providing, was a sure way to ensure they did not have to build that breakwater. In fact, they never did build it. The town of Chemainus has no way by which it can raise sufficient money to match the cost of building that breakwater.
Fishing and Recreational Harbours
I give the minister an example of the obverse side of that problem. In Cowichan Bay in my constituency they also need a breakwater. They have a serious difficulty when storms come from a certain direction. They applied for a breakwater. The argument presented to them was that since all the operators there are private entrepreneurs, they must put up the same amount of money in marina facilities as the government will spend on the breakwater.
The point is their marina facilities are in first class shape. Most of them have been built in recent years. On what would they spend three quarters of a million dollars? Painting them? They do not need more facilities. They need protection. However, under this so-called small ports and recreational harbours policy, the government has found a means by which it can avoid its responsibility. The people there are told that unless they spend three quarters of a million dollars doing renovations to their facilities which are not required, the government is not prepared to put in the breakwater.
For a long time the government has needed a clear-cut policy with regard to small craft harbours. I do not lay the entire blame on the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc). In fact, he has probably tried harder than any of his predecessors to get some money so that he can enunciate a policy. However, he has not been able to get it. The result is that the policy is largely a paper policy.
Both the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and the hon. member for Niagara Falls told the House that by debating this legislation, we were preventing many people from getting additional wharves and berths where they could tie up their boats. There is nothing in this legislation which provides for one single wharf or for providing any berthage accommodation.
This legislation provides for shared programs which are dependent upon the provincial government, the municipality or some private entrepreneurs putting up money if the federal government puts up money. If the federal government's allocation of money for small craft harbours is as limited as it has been for the past ten or 12 years, none of those wharves will be built and none of that accommodation will be provided.
This is just an attempt to kid the public, saying that by passing this legislation they will get wharves and accommodation for boats of fishermen and recreational boats. There is no guarantee that is going to happen. It will only happen if money is provided in the estimates and certainly there is no indication so far that money in the quantities required will be provided.
The government has the responsibility with regard to commercial fishermen on both the east coast and the west coast. For anyone who thinks they are getting a free ride, i point out that these fishermen pay income tax and other taxes just like the rest of us. They pay very large sums for their fishing licences for which, by the way, sports fishermen on the west coast do not pay. The commercial fishermen must pay $1,000, $2,000 or more for their licences to catch fish.
When they come back from their fishing expeditions, surely they have a right to a place to tie up their boats at a

February 3, 1978
Fishing and Recreational Harbours reasonable figure and not held up to ransom as they have been. As a matter of fact, it is the kind of service which they should be provided with by the Government of Canada. People use airports which are supported by the government. People use other facilities which the government provides for the public in general. There is no reason why commercial fishermen should not be provided with this service. If they are going to pay, surely it ought to be on the basis of a clearly defined schedule of fees which is reasonable and fair. That has not been done.
In his speech the other day, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni made a great deal of the fact that there has been adequate consultation with the commercial fishermen in British Columbia. As reported at page 2448 he stated:
-I do not accept the statement that those in the fishing industry have not had an opportunity to make their views known.
Further on he stated:
Surely it is not the role of parliament to send out invitations asking every Canadian if he wishes to appear before a standing committee.
That statement is as amazing as it is stupid. Nobody on this side of the House, least of all the hon. member for New Westminster, was suggesting that every Canadian should be notified that a bill is going before a committee. However, any government that has an understanding of participatory democracy, about which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) used to make speeches, would recognize that when you draft legislation which affects certain groups of people, a draft in the form of a green paper or white paper should be sent to those organizations. They should be given an opportunity even before the legislation is formulated to express their views and to advance their opinions. They should also be notified when the legislation is referred to a standing committee of this House so they will have an opportunity to appear before that committee and set forth their views with regard to the legislation as it affects their members. That has not been done.
I have here a telegram which I understand was sent to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment on February 1. It reads:
Thirty-third annual convention of the UFAWU urgently requests you withdraw Bill C-2 until proper consultation with fishermen and industry organizations. We resent ramrodding tactics. We demand meaningful consultation prior to passage of any legislation affecting livelihood of fishermen. Bill C-2 not consistent with your pledge to UFAWU executive of equitable reasonable wharfage fee.
Jack Nichol, President
So it appears that at least one organization representing the commercial fishermen on the Pacific coast feels it has not been adequately consulted. The telegram goes even further and says the legislation is not in keeping with the commitment made to the fishermen with respect to wharfage fees. This is inexcusable.
The government says the legislation has been before the House for two years. Surely in those two years there was ample time in which to consult with the fishermen-if the minister could not do so in person, then the deputy minister, the parliamentary secretary or some other responsible person

could have done so. It is unfortunate that at a time when this legislation is passing through its final stages, the people who are likely to be most affected on the West coast are protesting that they have not been consulted and that the legislation is inconsistent with the commitments they believe the minister made to them with respect to wharfage fees. For this reason I do not feel 1 can support the legislation, having in mind the interests of the commercial fishermen 1 represent.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us gives me a great deal of concern. I wish to repeat the warning given by the last speaker with respect to the idea that we are holding anything up. It is obvious that we have a Minister of Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc). It is obvious that authority over small craft harbours has been transferred to him, that the votes and expenditures of moneys have come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Fisheries, and that the Department of Public Works is the agent for the Minister of Fisheries with respect to moneys spent and wharves and harbours.
What this bill is intended to do, therefore, is to establish by law what is already the case in practice. If we debated the measure from now until this time next year the practice would still go on. The bill before us will change little, if anything. It is, therefore, unworthy of a member of this House to state that delay in passage of the bill is holding up anything with respect to fisheries or harbours. It is merely a ploy used to downgrade the interest of the opposition in legislation introduced into the House, and it is not an honourable ploy. It is a deceitful ploy intended to mislead the public and persuade it that the opposition is extending unnecessarily the time required to do a good job.
I am reminded of an old gentleman who was quite a craftsman in my community. One day he was doing a little job when I happened to be around and one of his workmen came up to him. The employer asked how things were going. The chap who was working for him said, "Oh, I think it is good enough". The old craftsman looked at me and said, "I am sorry. I have got to go because when my man says to me he thinks it is good enough, I know there is something wrong with it; it means it isn't right." Mr. Speaker, when the opposition sees legislation which it feels is not right, it then becomes the obligation of the opposition to take such time as it may choose to try to make that legislation right and proper and fit the purposes for which the legislation was introduced in the first place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fred Alward McCain: That is precisely what every party on your left, Sir, has tried to do in connection with the bill before us, but with little or no result.
I am concerned about the bill because people in the fishing industry have complained to me since I have been a member of this House that they do not know today whether they are fishing legally or not. They knew they were yesterday. But they do not know today because regulations may change.
February 3, 1978

I wish to put on record the story of a fellow who owned a processing plant and who spent every nickel he had, and every nickel he could borrow, to bring his plant into compliance with regulations which had recently come into force. When the man was all through meeting the regulations the inspector came along to inspect the plant, prior to final licensing, and said to him; "Sir, I cannot approve your licence." The man, in amazement, said, "Why not? I have complied with every order I have received from fisheries officers with respect to regulations for my plant." "Oh," said the inspector, "did they not tell you that the ceiling in the room in which you salt your fish has to be eight feet high? Your ceiling is only seven feet six." 1 ask any intelligent man in this House, Mr. Speaker, what possible difference it could make to a fish in salt brine what height the ceiling of the room was? The answer is, obviously, none. But that processor was denied a licence because the ceiling in the salt fish room was not eight feet high.
When I look at Bill C-2 and see the regulatory powers extended to the minister and his staff, 1 am against the bill. Just last spring three boat-owners needed new boats. They applied for the subsidies which are supposed to be available to owners of their class of boats. They found that during the winter months the regulations had been changed and that because one of the applicants had a boat which was one foot longer or shorter than had been called for before the change was made, he no longer qualified. Because one of the other applicants needed a boat a little larger, in order to go into deeper waters, his application was not acceptable either. The regulations had been changed without notice. The third applicant had sold his boat and had ordered a new one. He found himself in very difficult circumstances when he was told he did not need that particular type of boat for his personal fishing operations. That is the impact of the regulations and I am not in favour of a bill which, clause by clause, fails to legislate, but accomplishes the government's purpose by regulation.
Look at clause 40. It refers to the use, management, and maintenance of every scheduled harbour, the enforcement of regulations and the collection of charges for the use of every scheduled harbour under the control of the minister.
It says in clause 5(2), "The minister may, subject to regulations . . Again, in clause 5(3) and 5(4) it says, "The minister may, subject to regulations .. ." Mr. Speaker, the minister is not subject to the rule of law; he is subject to the rule of regulations. The government has lost the art of legislating and governing its own behaviour by law. It wishes instead to govern the people by regulations at the whim and pleasure of any minister who may wish to make a change at any point in time.
Clauses 6 and 7 folllow clause 5 and are somewhat related to it, "subject to regulations". Clause 8 reads, "The minister may, subject to regulations . .." It is not subject to law, it is subject to regulations. Clause 9 of Bill C-2 reads, "The governor in council may make regulations" for all the purposes outlined. Clause 10 reads, "For the purposes of enforcing this act and the regulations, the minister may designate as an
Fishing and Recreational Harbours
enforcement officer..." Again it is subject to regulation. If one looks at each clause of this bill he will find that it is not a legislative document, but rather a regulatory document. The minister may do everything that criminal and civil legislation entitles him to, but the people who are affected by this are subject to the regulations permitted under this bill, and not necessarily to the bill itself. For this reason, among others, the bill is not acceptable.
I should like to refer to the problem of the wharfingers. Repeatedly it has been pointed out that wharfingers have collected fees at their pleasure, from whom they chose, and at a time convenient to them. They did not collect from all fishermen on a equal basis throughout the fishing community. We cannot pit one area against another in this regard, but a few fees were collected in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, the Bay of Fundy and Quebec. The amount collected was piddling and it varied depending on who was the wharfinger and the wish of the government of the day. There will be a return to wharfingers and charges will be collected. The minister has stated that these charges will be assessed according to regulation. He did not indicate how much they would be.
On behalf of the minister, Mr. Reid made a few remarks as reported at page 56 of issue No. 5 of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, dated Thursday, November 24, 1977, which reads as follows:
Turning to the province of Quebec, there are no charges collected at present. Total revenue collected in 1975-76 amounted to $1,848 with no berthage collections. The proposed new charges for a 45-foot vessel will be $90 per year; $45 for the annual charge and $45 for the extended lay-up, where required.
Turning to the maritime provinces; charges for a 45-foot vessel may amount to $189 per year under existing regulations.
He went on indicating that the charges will vary from area to area, that they will be higher in some areas of Canada than in others, and that the highest levy will be in the province of British Columbia. He continued:
In Newfoundland charges for a 45-foot vessel may amount to $189 per year under existing regulations. However, again, the minister has exempted vessels under 45 feet in length; charges for other vessels are collected very sporadically and only from a very few vessels.
The history of wharfingers and their collections is pitiful, yet they will remain in existence. It has been stated during committee hearings that wharfingers will look after boats and wharves. Apparently they will cover a lot of ground in this regard. One may entrust the safety of his boat and harbour in the care of a wharfinger. In contradiction to that, it is also indicated that the wharfinger will be working in an area with a radius of 25 miles. Even if the coast were perfectly straight, that would mean he would be responsible for the supervision of 50 miles of coastline.
How often will a wharfinger be able to visit the harbours along 50 miles of coastline? Could he do it every day, twice a day, once a week or once a month? There is no assurance. If wharfingers are to be assigned an area of 25 miles in radius, it is impossible for them to attend to the security and well-being of the harbours in that long a distance. Obviously this emanates from someone who has not visited a coastline. In a 50 mile distance there could be 20 fishing harbours at the most.

February 3, 1978
Fishing and Recreational Harbours
Of course, there may not be any. The wharfinger system will not work any better than it has in the past. Boats may move in and move out, tie up and untie, and pay no charges whatsoever, as was the case in the past.
The Department of Fisheries and the Environment has a substantial staff already in place. Perhaps that staff could assume the responsibility of visiting harbours. Perhaps they could fulfil the duties of wharfingers. I am sure they would do their jobs on an equitable basis, rather than what has been done in the past. It might be necessary to have an extra person or two along the coast.
Someone asked what revenue would be derived from the charges imposed upon the fishing industry along the coast, and the suggestion was $1,500,000. Someone asked what it would cost to put wharfingers in place. If my memory serves me correctly, the suggestion was approximately $900,000. This means that the extra charge to fishermen, which is of no value as far as the security of their facilities is concerned, will result in a $600,000 net to the department.
One significant thing was that the wharfingers would be entitled to travel expenses, which would be paid out of general revenue. The department was not prepared to estimate what those travel expenses would be, and therefore it was unable to indicate whether it would even net a nickel from hiring 300 wharfingers which would be handpicked by the minister, his staff, or by the member in the area concerned. This is another opportunity for the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment to act more on a political basis than on an administrative basis. I suppose one does not know whether he could find his wharfinger in Shediac or Moncton under the present minister. Because of the value of this industry, it deserves much better attention.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Young), so I decided to take a look at what he said in committee. He was rather critical, and this is what he said, as reported at page 2:12 of issue No. 2 of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, dated November 15, 1977:
In the figures that I have just been given, your expenditures for 1975-76 over 1974-75 actually dropped from about $2.9 million ...
That is fairly significant. One must remember that 1974-75 was an election year.
He went on:
-and then they take a leap in 1976-77 up to somewhere in the $4 million area. I would like to know if that $4 million contains funds that have come from FLIP, from LIP, from Canada Works or transfers from Public Works, work that the Department of Public Works has undertaken to assist in co-operation. This is what I am trying to find out as a member of this committee, and what we had a great deal of difficulty trying to ascertain last spring.
Later he said:
-I expect-and I am sure every member who sits in the House passing estimates expects-that is the outline, that is the program, that is the goal to which one works.
The goal is to know where the money comes from and how it is going to be spent. He could not find out. He went on to discuss the problems of getting a couple of projects in his constituency completed and he played up to the constituency that day and to the Prime Minister yesterday.
He went on to say:
I can tell them that my constituency has not seen a dime and, as a matter of fact, I can say to the department regarding the two projects that people would have liked to build in my riding; they have given up; they have just absolutely given up on departmental funding.
He was that critical of the department and its procedures in committee, and yet he was very supportive in the debate here yesterday.
It was interesting to listen to the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) who, in turn, gave the opposition a dressing down for their behaviour and praised his minister. Let me quote him from page 217 of the proceedings of the committee of November 15, 1977. He said:
However, I, like Mr. Crouse, am disturbed at the downward trend of funds, having fought very hard to increase them. Newfoundland went up in 1974-75-
Like the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Young) in the election year.
-but down again in 1975-76.
He went on to say:
We have to look at our budgets to make sure that an appropriate amount is allocated to Newfoundland for its Fishing needs because that, Mr. Chairman, more and more is becoming the economic basis of survival in our province and I think we have to look very closely at the trend that is developing there. I am not happy with it and I want to see a substantial amount of funds allocated to that province for small-craft harbours.
Let hon. members bear in mind that I have just quoted the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador. He went on to say:
I am disturbed at a number of other things though and that is the amount of repair that had to be done. It seems to me that in a number of cases we had to rebuild wharfs the second year. I am thinking of two, for example, now on the Labrador coast, in Forteau and L'Anse-au-Clair, where wharfs were built and breakwaters were built a couple of years ago and now, one or two years later, we have to go through the whole process again to allocate maybe a couple of hundred thousand dollars in each case because the job was not done properly in the first place.
Again that gentleman played up to the Prime Minister and failed to serve the interests of his fishermen in the House because he did not say publicly in the House what he thought he could say safely in the committee, where he would not be quoted and where he would not be found to be in disagreement with his minister and with the Prime Minister.
The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) who spoke on this bill complained seriously about the use of FLIP, LIP and other money, as I did. The department does not vote adequate funds to sustain itself and has to lean on other departments, borrowing and begging support from them. I complain about it not for the same reasons as did the hon. member for St. John's East, which were laudable and very proper, but because every constituency which has inland communities which may require certain services finds itself able to make improvements in the community by improving facilities

February 3, 1978

for athletics, social functions or community social affairs. I submit that the coastal communities are entitled to the same amenities as inland communities, but when federal funds in make-work projects are taken from the make-work opportunity for social purposes and placed into a wharf on the coast, those coastal communities are denied the services so generously afforded to the inland communities, and vice versa. Both inland and coastal communities are equally entitled to these amenities. When the government is not prepared to allocate adequate money to a department and when that department must go begging to others, it means that the government is not acquainted with the importance of the industry to which we are referring at present.
To give the House an example of the degree of begging and borrowing that the department has done, let me turn to page 1:13 of the committee proceedings of November 10, 1977 where Mr. Reid is reporting to the committee. He said:
This is in sharp contrast to the expenditure levels in recent years which have been as follows: 1973-74, $22,369,800; 1974-75, $30,621,800; 1975-76, $28,848,300; 1976-77, $42,758,000, approximately.
That $42 million which he claims to have spent and with which he hoped to appease fishermen from coast to coast was not voted for the Department of Fisheries in total because $5 million of it was from a special agreement with Quebec-I do not quarrel with that, do not misunderstand me-$5,500,000 was from LIP, and $5 million from FLIP. So actually for 1976-77 the minister was voted less money than in any of the three previous years mentioned. At no time, except for that jump in 1973-74 from $22 million to $30 million, has there been an increment in expenditure in that department which has kept pace with inflation; and at no time has enough money been voted, as would have been voted 25 years ago, to maintain reasonable standards in the port facilities of our country.
Let me quote again, as I have quoted probably four or five times in the House, the words of a high official in the Department of Public Works who was questioned directly some time around 1973 and asked how much money was being spent in terms of real dollars as compared to what was being spent in 1950. That public servant-this does not come from me or from any other member-said: "Today we are spending about 25 cents in real dollars as compared to the dollar we spent 25 years ago''.
Since that time, we have not caught up in real dollars. There is no awareness in the Department of Fisheries of the needs which exist in the industry. The fishermen are asking what will result from these extra fees and what will result from the hiring of more wharfingers. Not a thing has been mentioned. People on the Fundy coast are asking how many haulouts they will get, since a haulout has not been built by the Department of Fisheries for so long that they cannot even find the wrecks of those that had. There is not a place where they can bring their boats for painting, repairing, refurbishing or improving, so they are asking whether they will get a haulout when the fees are larger and when we have all these wharfingers.
Fishing and Recreational Harbours
I have not heard a word from the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Landers) on this subject. I assume he is being asked whether people who pay these larger fees will get winter harbours. We once had a winter harbour, but we were kicked out of it by the National Harbours Board. Now we have to pull our boats out on shore, and they deteriorate at about twice the normal rate when they sit on the shore for the winter. We want a winter harbour, and I would like to have the support of the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster and the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) for that project. If I had that support, I would be able to agree with the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) that the minister is a good minister. However, the 200 boats which were kicked out of the harbour by the National Harbours Board are now dragged up on the beach for the winter to deteriorate at about twice the normal rate.
Are we going to get prompt wharf repairs? In the fall of 1976 a little harbour in my constituency suffered some damage in a storm. The sheathing was coming loose, and the fenders were coming loose. This was reported to the proper office. I went back to that same little harbour the next spring, and the fenders were still loose, the sheathing was looser and nothing had been repaired. People are asking whether their harbours will be fixed more quickly. I went back to that harbour last fall, a year after my first visit, and the fenders were still loose, the sheathing was still loose and the harbour was not repaired.
My constituents want to know whether harbours are to be fixed early and cheaply, or will they be fixed late? Will money be wasted, and will the government wonder why it cannot fix two harbours for the price of one? That is what my constituents are asking about this in light of this new charge and all these wharfingers. There are some harbours at which there is light. At those harbours boats can be moored and their batteries charged. Are we going to have lights at every harbour? There are harbours where there is fresh water. Are we going to have water at every harbour, or will there be lights here and wells there but neither at all harbours?
Are facilities going to be improved in exchange for this extra charge? The roads to some of our fishing harbours, which are the responsibility of the Government of Canada, are in terrible shape. In some cases we have to stop short of the wharves and carry our equipment, water, food and oil aboard when we should be able to drive right up. Are we going to get those roads fixed more quickly?
My constituents are asking whether they will have adequate wharf facilities. At the moment boats are tied up five, six and eight tiers deep along piers, and we do not have adequate breakwaters. We have to move our boats at night. Will there be improvements? If so, that was never mentioned in any discussion of this bill.
My constituents are asking if they will be consulted before wharves are built. Is the minister going to spend $500,000, as was done in my constituency where there were three sets of plans and blueprints drawn up? The minister took a look at the three sets and decided on the cheapest plan. However, he did
2534

February 3, 1978
Fishing and Recreational Harbours
not consult the Fishermen who knew the winds, the tides, the currents and the way the water would flow. After building the cheap one, to which the fishermen objected for years as they waited, the minister is now being requested to build another one in the same harbour because the first one was not built properly.
Ottawa engineers do not know the water, nor does the fellow sitting in some grand office in Saint John. Dollars and cents do not make a good harbour unless they are properly spent. They can be wasted in large or small sums. Fishermen want to know whether they are going to be consulted so that they can have proper harbours instead of wasted public funds. Will that consultation result from this bill? I could not get any answers in our committee, so it is my responsibility on behalf of the fishermen in my constituency to say that this is bad legislation and I have to vote against it.
A harbour in my constituency has needed dredging for three years. The fishermen knew it would cost $50,000 to fix that harbour. When I was visiting there I noted in a little piece in a paper that it cost the government $200,000 to appoint a minister without portfolio, to give him a staff and to put an executive assistant and a constituency secretary in his constituency. It cost $200,000 to set up the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). That money was budgeted from nowhere. But when we asked for repairs to be made to wharves, it was easy for the government to say it was out of money.
We noticed too that the minister of fun and games-excuse me, the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) (Mrs. Campagnolo)-had no budget at all, but it was estimated that it cost $20,000 for the first safari she made across Canada. A little harbour could have been put into perfect condition for $20,000. I was asked how that minister could get $20,000 for a safari when boats were grounding out and when they could get into their harbour only under certain tide conditions.


Mr. Bechard:: What was the answer?


Fred Alward McCain: The answer was that the minister of fun and games had priority. It does not make any difference how money is spent or whether it is voted as long as their is benefit to the Liberal caucus. However, it does make a difference to a fisherman if he cannot get into a harbour. We are talking about an industry which is of inestimable value and of growing value to the Atlantic coast. It has been mismanaged to a degree which is absolutely deplorable.
If the minister can be given credit for anything, I suppose it would be for taking the helm of a department which had previously been thoroughly mismanaged. Stocks had been thoroughly neglected. International agreements had given our wealth away, to the detriment of our people. However, something had to be done, and something was in the process of being done when the present minister took over. He took over a department which had finally taken the advice of members of the opposition that we should have a 200-mile limit. He took over at a crucial time when fisheries had been so neglected by the Trudeau administration that they had nothing but better to hope for. He took over at a time when the former minister had

begun to consult with fishermen. Committees of sailors cooperatives, fishermen and organizations from the east and west coasts were invited to the former minister's office and into the committee. Their expenses were paid, and their advice was taken. The minister inherited the fruits of the labour of his predecessor, who stumbled along for a long time but in the last days of office finally took the advice of members of the opposition and people in the field.
Plans were on the drawing boards when this minister took over, and he has coasted ever since. There is much left to do. If fishermen have to pay bigger fees, they want to know if they will get more licences and broader fishing privileges or whether they are to continue to be restricted.


James Aloysius McGrath: That is another application of user pay.


Fred Alward McCain: These proposals must have been copied from those of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). I wonder if that is possible, or perhaps they too came from the Prime Minister.
The fishermen want to know what to do because we are losing a generation of fishermen. It is all very well for prairie members to grin at that statement, but if they were to visit the coast and see these young people with nothing to do, no licence to fish and their inheritance taken away by regulation and mismanagement, they would not find anything to smile at. This is a serious situation.
In committee I asked how much of an impression it would make on the stocks of the sea if we allowed inshore fishermen more extensive licences and more species to fish. I have not received an answer yet. I know of a father and four sons who all want to fish, but with just one licence the father cannot keep those four sons busy. There is no way they can get a boat, no way they can get a subsidy, and no way they can get a licence even if they had the boat. Fishermen on the east coast want to know if they will get more licensing privileges if they pay larger fees. They want to know, if more wharfingers are appointed, if that means they will be allowed to catch more species and have more flexibility.
A man who had a 70-foot carrier in the Bay of Fundy wanted to know if he could have a fishing licence. He no longer had a job because the fishing industry which he served had been reoriented-and properly so; I have no quarrel with that step. The carrier, who brought the fish from the offshore fishermen to inshore, did not have a job, however, because he could not get a licence to fish anything. So his 70-foot boat, which would cost a couple of hundred thousand dollars minimum today, is tied up and rusting.
I have heard it said that the minister is a good one, Mr. Speaker, but I submit to you that he is a cruel minister who will move young people out of my constituency through regulation without having any proof that the stocks will be seriously depleted if those young people are allowed to make a living at home. Instead they are added to the ranks of the unemployed;

February 3, 1978

they would like nothing better than to work. Mr. Speaker, this is not progress and this is not good legislation.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am also going to vote against this bill for the reasons given by the hon. member who just sat down and for those given by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) when he spoke on third reading on January 31.
I will just summarize those reasons which are already well known to the House. We will vote against this bill because reasonable amendments which we offered in committee were not accepted. We will not grant a blanket authority to the minister and the government to decide what fee structure will be imposed in the future on the use of wharves and other harbour facilities used by our fishermen. We do not agree that the government should have the right to lease wharves to private individuals or other bodies without consultation, there being no requirement on them to consult with any local or provincial authority. These are reasons enough for voting against the bill.
The bill deals with the development and administration of certain fishing and recreational harbours in Canada. In Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, there are 563 fishing harbours out of 573 harbours, according to the information that the government gives us. In 1973-1974, $218 million was spent on those harbours; in 1974-1975, $6.6 million was spent, an increase which took place because that was an election year. There was election spending in Liberal districts. In 1975-76 spending on the 563 fishing harbours dropped back to $4 million. I do not have the figures for 1976-77 nor for 1977-78 but LIP projects and Canada Works projects are now being used to supplement spending.
In committee the minister said that spending on recreational and fishing harbours increased from $22.3 million in 1973-74 to $47 million this year. When we consider the inroads of inflation on the dollar, that is not much of an increase in real terms. This is particularly so when it is realized that 2,300 small harbours and 4,000 facilities in Canada comprising wharves, breakwaters and other structures would come under the administration of this bill.
The minister asks us to leave the decision to him about what is to be charged to commercial fishermen for use of facilities which they have used for centuries at no charge. I am not aware of any charge that has ever been made in the province of Newfoundland for the use of wharves, breakwaters and other facilities, yet the minister asks us for blanket authority to set charges in the future. I certainly cannot agree to that.
Other hon. members have made the point, and I should like to stress it again, that not enough money is spent on this valuable resource, particularly when it is realized it will be one of the growth industries in Canada for the balance of this century. Rather than being the sick man of the resource industries of Canada the fishery is going to be the growth industry in the next ten, twenty or thirty years, on the east coast in particular. Of course, this government will not be in office much longer so when this party takes over we will
Fishing and Recreational Harbours increase spending and vastly increase spending on facilities on the east and west coasts.
There appears to be some discrimination in the legislation, Mr. Speaker. A lot more money is to be spent in Quebec than in the Atlantic provinces. According to the information 1 have, Quebec has 94 fishing harbours out of 364 harbours, on which in 1975-76, $9.8 million was spent in that province. That is double the amount spent on the 563 fishing harbours in Newfoundland. I am not saying that the money should not have been spent on these harbours in Quebec. Obviously it should be spent on them as well as harbours elsewhere in Canada.
The spending is more biased in the supplementary estimates for 1977-78. Of a total supplementary spending on marine programs of $25 million, the four Atlantic provinces will receive $5 million, Quebec will receive $15,700,000, Ontario $2,300,000 and the Pacific coast $2 million. In other words, Quebec is to receive an additional supplementary spending of three times the amount to be spent in the four Atlantic provinces. Of that $25 million in the current and capital account, Newfoundland is to receive $2,430,000 for its 563 ports. Quebec will receive $15,700,000 or 6V2 times as much. Doubtless the money is needed in Quebec, but it shows where the political priorities of this government are. The Atlantic provinces and the west coast should receive their share. There appears to be discrimination in this program and that is another reason why I shall not support the bill.
Much work should be done to harbours, wharves and breakwaters in my district. Mr. Speaker, I should say here that 1 find the personnel in the department to be extremely co-operative but I should like to remind them and the minister of some things that need to be done and that I expect to see in the estimates for the coming year. The most important is the wharf and breakwater at St. Bride's Placentia Bay. That is a community that the Progressive Conservative government of Newfoundland has made vibrant by financing the building of a small fish plant there. As a result of that there are possibly many dozens of fishermen fishing out of St. Bride's bringing in millions of pounds of fish for processing at the plant at St. Bride's operated by Quick Freeze Limited and the whole area has had an economic comeback.
However the wharf is inadequate at St. Bride's. The breakwater is inadequate. Damage was done to it again. The government spent some money on the wharf last year by making repairs. However, they did not do a permanent job, and it has now all washed away. The government has agreed to commence work on this wharf again and hopefully it will be completed before the fishing season opens this year. This is a vital and urgent matter.
Branch is now becoming once again a vibrant fishing centre, Mr. Speaker, with long liners fishing out of that port. The people there are returning to the fishery. But dredging is badly needed and permanent improvements to the channel into Branch also should be made.
80031-1 9Vi

February 3, 1978
Fishing and Recreational FI arbours
At Port Kerwin and the district of Ferryland we need a wharf and a stage. I did my best to obtain two Canada Works projects for that purpose in Port Kerwin this year but unfortunately the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) will not allow Canada Works recipients in Newfoundland to be paid the same pay as workers on the mainland, and so we have the lowest wage rates for people employed by Canada Works projects of any province in Canada. Because of this fact it is impossible to find people willing to work on those projects. Therefore the government will have to build a wharf and a stage at Port Kerwin itself.
At Riverhead and St. Mary's Bay once again the fisheries are making a comeback and dredging is needed.
At Point Lance, which is near Branch, an extension to the wharf is required for the inshore fishermen. At Peter's River, again the fishery is flourishing and men are returning to the fishery. At Point Lance the community stage is adequate. It was put there by the provincial government. However, the wharf needs to be extended. Peter's River in exposed to the open sea and the fishermen cannot be waiting all day in their boats in stormy weather to unload their fish. An extension is needed to the wharf so that they can unload three or four boats at the same time. I have asked the minister to give that matter priority.
At Placentia they are dredging an additional wharf space which is needed in the area called Swans. At Bay Bulls we are waiting to hear what will be done this year respecting the new marine service centre of the Department of Fisheries. We have been told there will be a new wharf built this year. I would like to have it confirmed that there will be a new facility which will be constructed in 1978 at a cost of something like $3 million. This facility will serve the federal fishery and patrol vessels. I would like to know when that project will go ahead, what it will comprise and how much will be done this year. This will be another flourishing fishing centre, Mr. Speaker.
I was at St. Shott's during the Christmas break. The wharf there has been damaged and although work was done on it last year there is need for a much more adequate slipway. The fishermen at St. Shott's fish from one of the most exposed locations in the north Atlantic. These facilities are essential. Arnold's Cove is a place where dredging is required. At Argentia work will be required there. At St. John's a small boat facility and a slipway is needed. At Fairhaven and Placentia Bay a breakwater is needed. At Dunnville, because of the rebirth of the fishery a new wharf is needed for the fishermen. At Ferryland work is required to be done. Mr. Bill Morry of Ferryland is one of the few men left who was an expert in the salt codfish industry. Salt codfish today is as valuable as gold. Light salted, Spanish cured codfish is worth its weight in gold today and there is not very much of it produced because of the amount of work required in the production of it. But Bill Morry is leading a revival this year in Ferryland on the south shore in the saltfish business. He is using his old premises and work needs to be done to assist him there. It is important for us to co-ordinate the salt fishery with the fresh and frozen fishery, particularly during the glut

season in June and July when the codfish come inshore and are caught in traps in tremendous quantities. At Portugal Cove South work is also required on the wharfing facilities. These are just some of the requirements that the minister should consider for this year.
This is a very important subject for Newfoundland. I am sorry that I do not have adequate time to deal with it. In Newfoundland we have come full circle. When the Liberal party first got into power in 1949, when Mr. Smallwood, Mr. James and their cohorts were in charge the fishery was a poor thing. We had to get out of the fishery and the only way for Newfoundland to develop and become prosperous was through the development of industry. It was the great Smallwood philosophy of "develop or perish". That great Liberal philosophy-"we are going to develop and you are going to perish." From 1949 to 1971, which is 22 years, Newfoundland suffered under that policy of industrialization. Despite our position in the northwest Atlantic, a strategic location, the fishery went down. That was the fault of our provincial government led by Mr. Smallwood, and the fault of the government here in Ottawa led by the various people during those years, with one brief respite when the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was in power.
Now the whole thing has been reversed. When the Progressive Conservatives took power in 1972 they saw the importance of the fishery. They started to agitate for the 200-mile economic zone, which should have been the continental shelf. It makes me laugh, Mr. Speaker, to hear the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) say that we have to make this concession and that concession to the foreign fishing fleets because our fish do not recognize the 200-mile economic zone, that they swim back and forth and we cannot just tell the foreign fishing fleets to keep out of our 200-mile economic zone. He says we must keep on good terms with them because we do not control the fish beyond the 200-mile economic zone, we do not control them beyond the Flemish Cap, and so on. Why did Canada agree to a 200-mile economic zone when it should have extended to the continental shelf, covering all the fish species that are found off the east coast of Canada? It is no excuse for the minister to say that he has to make these concessions.
We have had a tremendous turnabout in Newfoundland. We know that we are not going to be an industrial paradise. We have also had great economic misfortune. Newfoundland was more severely hit than anywhere else in Canada by very high unemployment. We had the collapse of the linerboard mill, the shutting down of an oil refinery, the shutting down of pioneer housing-I believe that is what it was called-in Placentia, and the shutting down of the fluorspar mine in St. Lawrence. We have suffered all of these economic blows.
The one bright spot we have is the fishery, which is starting to flourish once again. Catches are improving and the fishermen are getting higher prices. The industry is better organized and the fishermen now have a strong union which has done a good job for them. The fishery is now widely recognized to be the essential industry of Newfoundland, the essential lynch
February 3, 1978

pin. It is seen that the inshore fishery is of great importance. We even find Liberals, such as the Secretary of State for External Affairs, making a statement on Jjinuary 26 on fisheries development in Newfoundland. Let me quote from page 3:
Nevertheless, fishery development, along modern lines, is the best economic generator Newfoundland can have.
That is quite a turnaround for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It was he and his Liberal government in Ottawa, and Mr. Smallwood and his government in Newfoundland, that said the inshore fishery was finished. They let it run down in the 1950s and 1960s. They developed a great resettlement scheme financed with federal money from copious funds in Ottawa which removed people from the northeast coast and the inshore fishing communities and brought them into centralized areas where they were to go to work in industrial ghettos. The only problem was we did not get the industry for them to work at. They were taken from places where they could have fished and been productive and moved to places where they could no longer be productive but where they had better schools, highways and the like. That was all done because the Liberal government of the 1950s, the 1960s and up to 1972 did not recognize the fishery as being important.
However, we now have the Secretary of State for External Affairs stating that fishery development along modern lines is the best economic generator that Newfoundland can have. It is a new discovery. I am glad to see they are adopting the policy of the Progressive Conservative administration of Mr. Moores in Newfoundland. The minister went on to say at page 3:
It is part of the social fabric of the province, the main supporter of a distinctive lifestyle. Whatever other elements are added, the Newfoundland fishery must be the key, the foundation for any development strategy.
I am glad to see he has come to this. Now it is recognized. Further down the page, he stated the inshore fishery comes first.
The fact is that how the offshore fishery is managed determines the fate of the inshore fishery and that of thousands of inshore fishermen.
I do not have time to go into everything that the hon. gentleman stated in his 17-page statement. There is much in it with which I can agree. Some of the wording and some of the meaning is not clear, such as the differences between the two governments. I do not have time to go into all that. I notice on page 6 his bias toward the south coast, his own district, when he says:
Even though the general offshore catching capability is more than adequate at present, there are, as noted, some plants, particularly on the south coast, with specific and immediate problems.
There are plants other than on the south coast of Newfoundland with specific and immediate problems, such as the plant at Harbour Grace, Conception Bay. It used to operate 12 months a year when it had a fleet of Fishing trawlers fishing there. Since 1968 it has been an inshore plant dependent on the inshore fishery only. Without a trawler fleet, it is only operating five or six months of the year. A proposal has now been made by Ocean Harvesters Limited at Harbour Grace
Fishing and Recreational Harbours
and by Nordzee which could, if accepted, result in that plant operating all year round and having trawlers fishing there. I do not have time today to go into all the pros and cons of that particular situation.
I do want to point out the bias evident in the federal fishery policy in Newfoundland caused by the pre-eminent position of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He is concerned with fish plants on the south coast, but much less concerned with fish plants and fishermen elsewhere on the island. The illustration of this is the fact that on January 24 the federal fisheries minister made the statement that he is now considering chartering foreign fishing vessels. Everyone said it was great that the federal government was going to charter foreign fishing vessels and land fish in Newfoundland or other parts of Canada so that our plants would operate toward full time; they now operate at 35 per cent capacity.
It now turns out that the minister is going to charter foreign fishing vessels to land catches in Newfoundland not at Harbour Grace or other inshore plants, but at plants that normally work 12 months of the year but which ran into supply problems last year. In other words, this is to help those plants which normally operate year round. They are nearly all on the south coast of Newfoundland, in the district of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. There is no help for the plant, the fishermen and the fish workers at Harbour Grace, Twillin-gate or anywhere else in Newfoundland.
In that statement of January 24, the minister said there were several thousand tons of northern cod unlikely under present arrangements to be taken by Canadians this year. We might keep that in mind when the great debate on possible Nordzee investment comes forward. There is a bias here. The Lake companies had just bought the fish plant owned by Booth Fisheries, formerly located in Fortune on the Burin peninsula. That plant is having great trouble, it is not getting enough fish. The trawlers they have are side trawlers and stern trawlers. The catches they are bringing in are not enough to keep the plant operating 12 months of the year. This plant is in the district of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
What the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) is talking about is a scheme for the federal government to charter foreign fishing vessels, which they will not permit other people to do, to land fish principally at the new Lake plant in Fortune, in the district of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, so that the plant will be able to work 12 months of the year. There is no suggestion of any scheme to land fish elsewhere in Newfoundland, such as in St. John's West, St. John's East, Bonavista-Trinity-Conception or any other area where the plants operate only four or five months of the year.
The minister said that the suggestion that we should divide the ownership of catching vessels from processing plants is an interesting one. He does not say he buys it, but I believe that is the direction he has to go. He said it would be an evolving concept in Newfoundland.
He recognizes that the traditional trap fishery is the backbone of the inshore fishery. That is certainly true. It is the

February 3, 1978
Fishing and Recreational Harbours
Newfoundland government that is trying to enhance and help this traditional trap fishery. Most of the catch is taken in the six to eight week period in June or July when the cod come inshore. It has studied what can be done and has made proposals in a report just completed. Many of the initiatives and directions have been taken by the provincial government and not by the federal government.
At page 8 the minister comes to the conclusion that salt cod and fresh frozen cod production must be complementary and not competitive. He is following my lead that I gave him in 1974-75. He recognizes the need for more strategically located cold storage and holding facilities in Newfoundland.
The Newfoundland government just moved on this by calling tenders for cold storage and holding facilities at Placentia. It is the provincial government that is doing this. The provincial government does not have two cents to rub together, yet it is devoting its resources to these kinds of things.
The minister went on to discuss quotas and Canada's needs. At page 12, he pointed out something with which I agree. I quote:
Newfoundland is vulnerable as long as we are so very dependent on a single market.
As long as we depend on selling 80 or 90 per cent of the value of our fishery products to the United States, we are very vulnerable. The United States is now developing its own fishery because it has its own 200-mile economic zone. Other countries are still selling there. We will be in a very dangerous position in three, four or five years if we cannot break into the European common market and sell our fish products there. That is another reason why this Nordzee proposal has to be looked into very carefully. It knows that market, the kind of fishery products it can sell there, how they should be processed, prepared and the like.
At page 13 the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that he did not think any foreign deals should be made at this time that are irreversible or not of an interim nature. I do not know what "foreign deals" means. He does not make it clear that he is against a firm like Nordzee from Germany purchasing shares in the operation of Ocean Harvesters in Harbour Grace. I do not know if that is what he means by a foreign deal. If that is the case, this is the only industry in Canada in which foreigners are barred from investing. The only other exception might be the uranium industry. Certainly the Foreign Investment Review Agency will not be in any position to turn down the application made by Nordzee and Ocean Harvesters.
Since the present minister took over the portfolio in September, 98 per cent of all the applications to the FIRA for new investment and acquisitions in Canada have been approved. Previous ministers approved about 90 per cent. Now the figure is up to 98 per cent. Therefore, the deal cannot be stopped by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) for any convincing economic reason. It may be stopped by the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment if he refuses to issue licences to certain trawlers.
The northern cod stocks that are mentioned are very important. At page 16 the Secretary of State for External Affairs makes the important principle, and I quote:
The division of quotas between offshore and inshore will be governed by how much fish can come to shore without creating an unmanageable "glut".
We have to let the fish come inshore. That should have priority. However, if all of the fish are left, if trawlers are stopped and offshore vessels are stopped fishing to allow all the cod to come inshore, we will not be able to manage the glut. Processing plants will not be able to handle it in six, eight or ten weeks. Obviously that is not necessary. It is a question of balance, how much is going to be required. No one has the answer to that yet.
There is another matter I want to take up here. In 1974 there was another tragedy in Newfoundland, particularly on the northeast coast, right from the St. Barbe coast around the northeast coast, White Bay to the St. John's area and perhaps along the southern shore. We had a tremendous amount of late Arctic ice. Even in July and August ice came into the coves and settlements and destroyed fishing gear. It was a disaster. Fishermen in those areas were wiped out. They Could not fish that year.
They would not have been able to fish if someone had not helped to replace all their gear. They were not able to insure the gear. They certainly did not have the assets to buy new gear. Therefore, the provincial and federal governments instituted a fishing gear replacement program.
Practically all of the fishing gear used by inshore fishermen on the northeast coast of Newfoundland was lost. The estimate was that 350 codtraps, 7,500 groundfish gillnets, 2,000 salmon gillnets and 70,000 lobster traps were lost, to an estimated value of $3'/2 million. That was the estimate made in July from all the information that could be obtained.
On August 28 of that year the present federal minister and the Newfoundland minister announced a special gear replacement program to replace the damaged or destroyed fishing gear and equipment. The federal government approved the use of the peacetime disaster formula to compensate for the gear that was lost. The estimate was $3'/2 million. If that had been the actual cost, the federal government would have paid 53.9 per cent or $1.62 million and the provincial government 46.1 per cent or $1.3 million. The reason is that under that formula the federal government pays if the losses exceed one dollar per capita of the provincial population. So for the first $500,000 the federal government would pay nothing, on the next million dollars it would pay 50 per cent, on the next million it would pay 75 per cent and thereafter it would pay 90 per cent.
It was realized that measures would have to be taken quickly if the fishermen were to fish that year-those who use gillnets, not those who use codtraps or lobster traps or who had lost gear of that kind. So the two governments together drew up guidelines and established a co-ordinating committee delineating the borders within which fishermen would receive compensation for their lost gear and the method to be fol-
[Mr. Crosbie.J
February 3, 1978

lowed. The only way of getting results quickly was by accepting the honesty of claimants. Claimants had to sign an affidavit stating how much gear they had lost and place a value on it. Arrangements would then be made for them to get new gear from suppliers and payment would be forthcoming from the government. Compensation was at the rate of 100 per cent.
Well, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, both then and now, the program was too generous. A certain percentage should have been made deductible. Many of those who tended to be dishonest would have been discouraged if they had been obliged to put up, say, 25 per cent of the amount themselves. It was known that there would be considerable abuse of the scheme by a minority of the people. On the other hand, measures of this kind had to be taken because in their absence nobody would have been fishing on the northeast coast of Newfoundland that year. The gear they had lost in June, July and early August had to be replaced.
It was not possible to take along chartered accountants and lawyers to check every claim. Many people made claims. Incidentally, it was possible for part-time fishermen to make claims. There was no requirement for the registration of gear and there was no way of checking whether applicants actually owned gear, or if they did, how much they owned. It was an impossible program to administer because it was necessary to depend upon the honesty of the people concerned. Many people made exaggerated claims concerning their losses. Others, who had lost nothing at all, nevertheless made claims and were prepared to sign false affidavits. Schemes were cooked up with gear suppliers under which their accounts at the stores would be credited as paid. They never got gear. They would go through the process of claiming for lost gear. If a man owed the gear supplier, say, $2,000, the store would get the $2,000 from the government and the account would be paid off; no further gear would be issued from the store. And so on.
A sizeable number of people abused that program, we do not know how many, and eventually it cost $7.2 million. Seven thousand fishermen received compensation-I am including now compensation for lost lobster pots, salmon nets, codtraps and the like. There were 6,500 claims. The scheme was administered primarily by the provincial government but the guidelines were set by the federal government; it was agreed to by the federal government and the federal people assisted where they could. So the scheme eventually cost twice the amount estimated. How much of that amount went to pay off false claims no one knows.
I notice that the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment is not here today and neither is his parliamentary secretary. Yet here we are discussing fisheries legislation. 1 assume they will read Hansard. The minister has not met his obligations to the government of Newfoundland in connection with the 1974 program. Ottawa should pay $5.1 million toward the cost of that program under the disaster formula, but so far $3.7 million is still owing. In other words, the federal government has paid only $1.4 million to the Newfoundland government. It has welshed on its agreement and is pressing the poor little
Fishing and Recreational Harbours government of Newfoundland by saying; "We can't pay because there was some fault in the program; we need to find out all about this fraud before we pay".
They knew at the time what was happening just as well as the province did. They agreed to the program and to the guidelines. The ministers who are present in the chamber should see that this injustice is corrected before the month is out and that the federal government turns over to the province the $3.7 million not yet paid without further malingering. This money has been owing for two or three years. Let the government stop welshing on its deals.
I might point out, also, that the federal government owes the government of Newfoundland $935,000 in connection with the building of a trawler at a cost of $4.2 million. When the Newfoundland government commenced construction it did so on the word of the Secretary of State for External Affairs that the province would receive a 35 per cent subsidy on the vessel, 22 per cent from the Department of Fisheries and 13 per cent from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. On the strength of that assurance-the shipyard concerned was in his district-the government of Newfoundland went ahead and built the trawler.
The Minister of Fisheries and the Environment has reneged on the undertaking to pay a 22 per cent subsidy under the fishing vessels assistance program. He has defied the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who admits he was ir olved in the affair from the beginning. He says he cannot pay the money over because there is some legal impediment in the way of his doing so. He tells us he is looking for other ways of doing it. I say to him, now: "Pay up. You are welshing on a promise. Pay the $3.7 million which is owing on the gear program, pay up the $935,000 you are welshing on this trawler, and pay up on the 55 to 65 vessels which the province is now building to assist the inshore and mid-shore fishermen under a program which will cost $35 million over five years." Let the ministers start paying the 35 per cent subsidy on those vessels which the government refused to pay this year.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) on a point of order.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, before consideration of private members' business, I would like to correct the erroneous impression left by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) who seemed to imply that the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) could not care less about Bill C-2 because he is absent from the House today. I would like to inform hon. members that the minister has left today to defend the interests of fishermen, specially those on the east coast, in a follow up on the conference which was held last December in the Conference Centre in Ottawa. As for the parliamentary secretary, it was just normal and reasonable

February 3, 1978
Private Members' Business
that he accompany the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in British Columbia.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: That is certainly not a point of order though it may be a point of debate or correction.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, could we just have clarification from the government side of the House as to whether Bill C-2 will be the first order of government business on Monday?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, that is what I understand.


Mr. Lachance:: Mr. Speaker, I believe that is the understanding. I presume it will be as the hon. member has indicated.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being four o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills and private bills.
Order No. 2; the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay). Stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order No. 4; the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis). Stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order No. 5; the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald). Stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order No. 11; the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies). Stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order No. 12; the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche). Stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of directing the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to make appropriate changes in its lending policy regulations to provide incentives to builders and developers who incorporate in their building plans the use of passive solar energy designs and/or solar energy systems for space and water heating.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House today, if it were approved this afternoon, in essence would direct the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to make changes in its lending regulations to provide incentives to builders. When I refer to builders, I mean Canadians who build their own homes; builders who build on behalf of clients and developers. When I refer to developers, I mean individuals or any business which develops subdivisions in our urban areas. These incentives would be provided to builders who incorporate in their building plans the use of passive solar energy designs and/or solar energy systems for space and water heating.
In order to illustrate, I should like to put forward the following example for consideration by hon. members. A $50,000 house usually qualifies for a mortgage in the neighbourhood of $35,000, if it is approved by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. This motion would add the cost of solar energy to the cost of the valuation of the mortgage as part of the mortgage itself. The expense incurred to include a solar package, which could be the design of a home, a domestic hot water heating system or any available technique, would be added and included in the mortgage that is made available to the builder or the developer who comes forward with a plan of this kind. At the present time, the regulations of CMHC do not permit the inclusion of this incentive. This is a very modest proposal in comparison to what the government has introduced so far.
There is in existence a valuable insulation program across this country which was announced by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) last year. As a result of the budget of 1976, there is a federal sales tax exemption on the sale of solar equipment. In the province of Manitoba there is a refund by the provincial government to municipalities which reduce the assessments of homes that have solar heating equipment incorporated in them. Thus, there are a number of measures in place which help to show how extremely minute this measure is.
February 3, 1978

A number of major projects are ongoing in Canada in regard to the development and the tapping of our natural resources. For instance, there is the $4,000 million Foothills pipeline; $3,000 million for the expansion and upgrading of the existing Great Canadian Oil Sands and Syncrude tar sands plants; an equal amount for the proposed tar sands operation; $2,000 million for electrical generation projects in the mari-times, including the Gull Island project; and the latest CANDU reactor now under construction in Le Preau, New Brunswick, at a cost of $684 million. These projects are part of an estimated $1,800 million investment between 1975 and 1990, which will provide a major boost to our economy. If I understand correctly, the federal government will participate in this project to the tune of approximately $1 billion a year, or close to 8 per cent of the total amount.
It is against this background that the motion has to be viewed. It has the merit and advantage of providing the average Canadian with an opportunity to play a role in moving toward self-reliance. It will allow the homeowner who is also a builder, and the developer who works for clients, to incorporate solar features in the homes to be built in years to come.
There have been positive statements on the use of solar energy and renewables in a number of documents which have been prepared by the government in recent years. Such positive statements appeared in the publication entitled: The Way Ahead, as well as in the latest Speech from the Throne. This direction was taken by the government in an attempt to benefit future generations. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) has warned that Canada will face an energy crisis in the 1980's.
The motion before the Elouse will encourage Canadians to incorporate solar technology when building their own homes and to benefit from CMFIC mortgages. The same will apply to builders and developers. This kind of involvement between governments and the public at large assists the nation in moving one step closer to self-reliance.
For the sake of time, I will limit my remarks today. The measure can stand on its own merits. I submit it for consideration by hon. members in the hope that they will give their valuable support to it.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: February 3, 1978
Use of Solar Energy
units and other equipment using renewable energy, they could have refined the product and made it less costly so that the consumer would have been able to benefit from it. That would have been better than standing back and saying that we cannot proceed with the project because adequate research does not exist at present. I say that the government could start providing real incentives immediately not only for research but to individuals so that they could place equipment using renewable energy within their structures.
Recently a booklet of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources outlined how we could put solar energy technology in Canada to use. It suggested that two benefits would flow from it. One would be the savings to society in terms of the prevention of pollution resulting from conventional heating methods. We all know that certain harmful emissions result from heating our homes with diesel fuel or oil, not so much from natural gas. We also know that renewable sources of heat, such as heat pumps, do not produce emissions and are perfectly safe.
It was also stated in the booklet that savings to society would result from the use of renewable sources of energy in the heating of homes. 1 believe that some 35 per cent of all the oil and natural gas in this country is used to heat our homes. If renewable sources of energy were used instead, that much oil or gas would be saved, and that much less would have to be imported or would be saved for other needs.
The hon. member for Davenport mentioned that we were running out of non-renewable resources. Surely now is the time to provide all sorts of incentives to save our oil and gas for future needs. I believe that a substantial program of financial incentives should be set up to encourage people to employ renewable sources of energy for heating. The suggestion which was put forward by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton), and which I support, is that the federal government, which will be bringing down its budget in the next month or so, should provide 150 per cent tax exemptions on the use of a source of renewable energy in existing or new structures. A heat pump, for example, would cost $3,000. A person placing one in his house would enjoy a tax exemption of $4,500. Solar heating is slightly more expensive. It is suggested that it would cost about $10,000 to put that system into the average sized house. A developer or an individual who installed that equipment would enjoy a tax exemption of $15,000.
If this type of incentive was provided, we would see in businesses and homes a 20 per cent reduction in the amount of oil, gas and electricity which would otherwise be used to heat them over the next few years. We use in the neighbourhood of one billion barrels of oil each year. If that oil costs $12 a barrel, we spend about $12 billion per year on oil and gas. If we save 20 per cent of that, we save $2.4 billion. That may well be an exaggeration because much of that oil and gas is used in cars, but surely hon. members can see that that kind of

saving would more than pay for the tax credit or tax exemption, and the results and benefits would be everlasting.
I said I was going to quote the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton). He has made two previous speeches about this, and I would like to quote from one speech in which he suggested that 150 per cent and 100 per cent tax write-offs should be allowed Canadians who use renewable energies within their homes. The hon. member stated, and I quote:
Following up my budget proposals in my speech of November 17, 1977, I submit the following paper at the request of your Parliamentary Secretary.
At this particular moment Canada's interests require a dramatic incentive for individuals to move towards some form of solar assisted energy savings. This need Fits in with the opportunity for potential budgeting.
In almost every case solar hardware is capital intensive. In other words, one large capital investment now versus the usual 20 years of annual energy bills.
My proposal is that any type of capital expenditure to reduce utilization by the individual of traditional energy sources should be given the same tax treatment that business gets, namely:
(a)	100 per cent write-off for proven hardware
(b)	150 per cent write-off for hardware still in experimental stages
This write-off was in place in tax provisions from 1959 to 1971, but it was removed by a budget of the Liberal government of that time. Our suggestion is that that write-off be put back in place for individuals who are prepared to use renewable energy sources.
Solar energy is not the only renewable energy source available. There are eleven forms of renewable energy which can be placed within various structures. I will state them quickly. Heat pump technology has been available for decades and is widely used in the United States today. With simple modifications it could be used here in Canada. The others are heat storage facilities, methane production, vertical axis windmills, solar absorption air conditioning, residential photovoltaics, individual water recycling, conversion of waste to energy, conversion of cow manure to protein, energy plantation and the production of hydrogen. All these are available in various technological forms today. In individual cases many could be placed economically within the businesses of homes of Canadians, if Canadians were provided the incentive.
At the present time, even with increases in the price of natural gas and oil heating, this is still within the bounds of most Canadians. However, as costs increase and as that resource becomes less and less available, it becomes more and more evident that we should be providing incentives to Canadians.
I was speaking previously about a report produced by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. The study took place in 1977. The report states that the lifetime costs of three space-heating energy systems have been calculated. Exempting solar equipment from property taxes resulted in the following cost comparisons: Solar, $7,960; oil, $6,600; and electricity, $11,280. This study showed that solar is still not competitive with oil. The figures I have given are 1977 figures, and since that time there has been an increase in the price of oil and natural gas. Even so, solar heating is and can be competitive

February 3, 1978

with electricity with only a small degree of government encouragement.
Another estimate in a study conducted by Middleton Associates-"Canada's Renewable Energy Sources:	An
Assessment of Potential"-revealed that the lifetime cost of a space and water heating system using short-term storage- solar-would be $6,105 as opposed to an electric space and water heating system costing $8,400. However, we must understand that the sun continues to shine, and once a solar heating system is set up, the cost over the years is written off, whereas an electrical system is paid for every day.
Other comparisons are also favourable. Heat pumps have an initial capital cost of approximately $3,000 and can save $375 a year on a $500 heating bill in the United States. They are not quite as efficient here because we have more days when the temperature gets down below -10 Centigrade. That problem can be overcome by placing a small water storage facility in the basement or outside, as long as it is fully insulated. By taking heat from water, efficiency can be even greater than what I have just indicated.
It is worthwhile to look at what is being done by the government of the United States. President Carter's energy plan would allow a person using solar energy to have a tax credit of $2,000. Despite its opposition to the plan the House of Representatives recommended that that be increased to $2,150. The Senate agreed that that should be allowed not only for homes but for businesses as well. The government of the United States takes this matter very seriously. Those incentives will soon be in place. That opportunity exists here in Canada, and I hope in the budget which is coming up the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) will include it. It would be much more beneficial to Canadians than providing some additional mortgage money through CMHC. We have a long way to go in this area, but perhaps adopting the hon. member's motion would help.
It is true that for some purposes renewable energy resources are just-


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak for only a minute or two and in doing so express the hope that the House will pass this motion before this hour expires. As the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) has indicated, once you raise the subject of energy in any form, almost anything is in order in that field. The motion before us this afternoon, however, is a very narrow one. It asks for one particular provision and I hope we can see fit to agree to it. I feel I cannot get to my feet on an occasion such as this, faced as I am with a member who is showing a great deal of persistence, without commending him for acting in that way. He has stuck with the subject of solar energy and has already had something improved by the House. He is back at it again today and I hope the House will support his motion.
Use of Solar Energy
I think 1 have to make a slight correction with respect to something he said at the beginning of his speech. If I heard him correctly he said that passing this motion would direct Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to make certain adjustments. I point out that the passing of the motion merely expresses the view of this House that the government should give that kind of direction to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. That is the way things work around here. If the motion were passed-and I hope it is passed unanimously- then woebetide the government that does not pay some attention to the opinion expressed by the House.
I commend the hon. member for sticking with this subject and I hope we support him this afternoon.


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) has suggested that the government consider the advisability of directing Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to make appropriate changes in its lending policy regulations to provide incentives to builders and developers who incorporate in their building plans the use of passive solar energy designs and/or solar energy systems for space and water heating.
This suggestion by the hon. member is worth, in my view, serious consideration because solar energy is one of the sources to be utilized in our continuing efforts to reduce our dependency upon energy sources which are irreplaceable. It is my intention now, Mr. Speaker, to place before the House some of the practical considerations that affect policy making in the area and then to set out the current thoughts of the government on the subject.
First, to enable hon. members to understand the subject more clearly, a distinction has to be made between active solar heating and passive solar heating. The former involves the reception of solar heating energy by solar panels, thermal storage, the input of electrical energy to drive pumps, fans and the like, distribution systems, and so on. Passive solar heating is defined as the contribution accruing to the domestic space heating load by virtue of glazing, which transmits solar heating energy directly into living space.
I mention the distinction, Mr. Speaker, between active and passive solar heating, in order to emphasis that the solar energy applications can range from the simple use of glazing for passive solar energy purposes to more complex solar energy installations.
I recognize that passive solar heating will not obviate the need for a conventional heating system capable of meeting the total heating requirement. No storage of heat is involved in passive systems and so, if there is no sunlight, the benefits are substantially reduced. Even so, there are no barriers that I am aware of to the designing of a house to benefit from such passive solar energy techniques.
I was pleased to be informed that considerable effort has been made to develop knowledge of the more complex active solar systems. There remains much that still requires investigation. Concerted efforts by CMHC and other federal agencies
80031-20%

February 3, 1978
Use of Solar Energy
such as the National Research Council in conjunction with provincial governments, utility commissions, and the private sector are so oriented.
Fortunately, we can draw upon the knowledge presently known and thus the government can respond constructively to the suggestion by the hon. member for Davenport. I am pleased to report that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) has directed Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to review its lending policy with respect to solar energy and to present its recommendations to him. He is particularly interested in the impact upon the present lending policy which provides for maximums on loans and also the measures necessary to ensure that only those systems providing effective performance are authorized.
With these few comments, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to indicate that the government agrees with this motion. 1 should like to thank the hon. member for bringing such a worthwhile motion to the House this afternoon.


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak only briefly in support of the motion put forward by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). My brevity reflects the degree of merit I attach to this motion. I sincerely hope that all members will see fit to refer this motion to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works without further debate.
In 1973, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) raised substantially the international price of oil and some of the oil exporting countries curtailed production and applied an embargo against certain oil importing countries. These actions precipitated what has come to be known as the energy crisis of the winter of 1973-74, and since then prices for crude oil have remained high. As a result of this crisis, it became necessary for Canada, along with other industrialized nations, to re-think and adjust our energy policy.
In 1976, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources outlined a new direction in Canada's energy strategy. The objective of the strategy is the achievemer of energy self-reliance. One of the policy areas involved in the attainment of self-reliance is increased research and development which has the potential to provide new energy options. One of these new options is renewable energy resources, which includes tidal, wind, biomass, geothermal and solar power. In February 1977, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, realizing that renewal energy sources would be piaying an increasingly dominant role in Canada's future energy supply, allotted renewable energy the largest share of the $10 million federal research development spending for the fiscal year 1977-78. Also, it was announced that the Department would establish a renewable energy research branch.
Our goal of self-reliance was reaffirmed in the Speech from the Throne. The relevant passage is as follows:
In the field of energy, it will continue to be the determined policy of the government to work with the provinces towards the goal of self-reliance, particularly by encouraging exploration and conservation to reduce our dependence on imported oil. Further encouragement will be given to the development of

energy saving technology of renewable energy resources and of the application of solar energy.
I should like to take a moment to outline some of the federal renewable energy projects now underway. The solar heating research and development program of the National Research Council has undertaken a number of projects. After completing a feasibility study of solar heating in Canada in 1976-77, several new initiatives were started, which included the sponsorship of the construction of fourteen solar-heated demonstration homes, the funding of seven research and development solar heating contracts and the establishment of an independent solar-collector test facility.
Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is working presently on a ten-year program, the mini-utility concept, which would develop parcels of land in the suburbs as sites for solar collectors to service communities using solar heating systems.
How does Canada's performance compare with the solar energy activities of other countries? The United States has made a clear commitment to the development of solar energy. Its goal is the provision of at least 7 per cent of the total national energy requirements by solar energy by the year 2000. Japan is also very active in solar research, development and application. In Australia, Sydney University was awarded $5.5 million by Saudi Arabia to continue solar research. Other countries with major solar commitments are France, Israel, Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany and Sweden.
Many people may question, why fund the expansion and development of solar energy? First of all, solar energy, unlike the fossil fuels, is essentially perpetual and inexhaustible. It is the basis of all life on earth and it is free. The notion that Canada is too cold a country to benefit from solar energy has been cast aside. We do have sufficient solar energy to meet present and future energy requirements.
Second is the degree of interest expressed by many Canadians. For example, the concept of a "conserver society" embodies the movement towards a greater reliance on renewable sources of energy, such as solar, rather than drawing on the world's stocks of non-replaceable fossil fuels.
I would like to close, Mr. Speaker, on a prediction made by Dr. Harry Swain, head of the renewable energy resources branch of energy, mines and resources. I quote:
A major crunch is coming in world oil prices around 1982 to 1985. We must get serious about solar power now. It takes time to build up an industry, establish the proper solar equipment and better housing standards, work out suitable lending rates from banks and devise government incentives. If we postpone all this to the next round of the energy crisis, it will be too late.
On that note, Mr. Speaker, I reiterate my support for this motion and urge its acceptance and referral to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works for further consideration.


Mr. Rod Blaker (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I must apologize to you and to hon. members in that I should have paid more attention to the order
February 3, 1978

paper. In so doing I would have recognized that this subject was placed on the order paper for debate this afternoon and I might have better prepared myself. I offer the most sincere compliments to the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) for his work, as he has already been complimented by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
I will try briefly to give you some reasons why all parties in this House should support this motion. I would hope that an interdepartmental task force at the most senior level will be struck. I believe that unless immediate action is taken Canada is going to lose a multibillion dollar industry in the next five years.
I might mention that CMHC has given approval in principle to the use of hot water solar panels and I think also space heating solar panels. I would add by way of example that in Australia, if my recollection is correct, one out of every two homes now makes use of solar panels for heating and hot water, and three out of every four homes under construction are making use of that type of equipment.
Other members have mentioned that in the United States there is already considerable support by the U.S. government for a solar panel industry, a decision which I believe we will be facing in Canada in the next five to 10 years. According to my recollection, it is expected that the next sharp and dramatic increase in Arab oil prices will be in 1982 or 1983, about five years from now. I believe the figures indicate it will be something in the order of an average annual increase of 15 per cent in the cost of imported oil. Again based on my recollection-I apologize if these figures are not exact but they are pretty close-it is expected that the cost of electricity will increase by about 12 to 14 per cent per annum in the foreseeable future. The cost of gas will increase by about 11 to 12 per cent per annum.
We are looking at a situation which right now CMHC considers to be profitable in terms of the cost of installation of solar panels, in particular solar hot water heating. From the point of view of the homeowner it will make it worth-while to invest approximately $2,000, resulting in his electricity or oil costs reducing accordingly over the length of his mortgage commitment, with the expectation that in approximately seven to ten years the cost of installation would be amortized by the reduction in the cost of oil and electricity for heating purposes.
We are looking therefore at a new utility, a somewhat similar historical development to the light, heat and power industry throughout the modern world. The question is what role Canada will play in the development of a new utility in Canada. In addition, it could include the question of capacity. It has the possibility of becoming a gigantic multibillion dollar export industry.
These solar panels are useful in a wide variety of climates all around the world. It is interesting to note in our temperate zone that the most successful and the most technologically perfect solar panel systems have been manufactured. When I say in the temperate zone, that includes the most populated part of Canada. Unfortunately there is virtually no manufacturing at all of solar panels in our nation.
Use of Solar Energy
There is a significant solar panel industry in the United States. In some cases it is on a sort of a cottage industry basis, and in other cases it is on a fully automated basis. In five years we are going to be buying our solar panels, which are made of copper, and in many cases Canadian copper, and glass and aluminum, in many cases Canadian aluminum, from the United States and from Exxon. These products will have to be purchased there unless we have the brains now to ensure that this industry is developed and that it will be a profitable and necessary industry. This should be the result in view of the increasing cost of other forms of energy.
I reiterate my compliments to the hon. member for Davenport for his recommendation that this kind of information be considered by the government. I hope this motion of the hon. member will be used by the government as an opportunity to review seriously and extensively the entire subject of solar heating. Canada should involve itself in this industry before we become, as we have with so many other things, nothing more than net importers of the finished product, even though in some cases the basic resources of those products are of Canadian origin.
If we required that every federal government building built from now on should utilize solar panels for its hot water heating requirements, it would create sufficient industry in this country to produce the resources, to produce technological expertise, to produce manufacturing expertise and to give us an industrial base to become one of the major exporters in the world.
Backbenchers on this side of the House are saying in a most courteous way that someone on our side is asleep at the switch. I would find it ironic in the extreme if members of the Conservative party were to talk out this motion.


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lachine-Lakeshore (Mr. Blaker) may find it ironic, but I have to tell him that every member who puts forward a motion or a private member's bill from this side of the House has the same expectation as the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), and to a man they are talked out. I intend to talk it out. I hope to do so in a manner that will indicate some support for the general principle of the motion, but I have some criticism of the manner in which this motion was presented.
The motion that the hon. member for Davenport presented, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) indicated, is very narrow. In my opinion it is much too narrow. It reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of directing the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to make appropriate changes in its lending policy regulations to provide incentives to builders and developers who incorporate in their building plans the use of passive solar energy designs and/or solar energy systems for space and water heating.
That is what it says, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member said he intended that the extra cost of passive solar energy systems would be added to the allowable mortgage amount. In other words, there was not any real incentive, because the mortgage would be bigger to carry the extra cost.

February 3, 1978
Use of Solar Energy
As we know, there is an extra cost in putting a solar system into a home.
To my way of thinking, it is not enough to restrict this idea to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. That is unfair. There are many homes built in this country which for obvious reasons are mortgaged by private means rather than through CMHC. There should be some method whereby private mortgages could be extended this same benefit. It is absolutely imperative that we have incentives.
1 intend to deal for a few moments with those comments made by my colleague, the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger). Before doing so, I want to refer very briefly to one or two comments made by the Lakeshore members, Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) and Lachine-Lakeshore (Mr. Blaker). They made a very valuable contribution to the discussion this afternoon.
The hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore said that solar energy is free. That is a misstatement. Solar energy is not free. It carries with it a very high cost in its adaptation to useful purposes in our northern hemisphere climate. I do not know whether the hon. member meant the fact that the sun shining down on us does not cost anything. In fact, that costs us something as well.
Obviously in the larger metropolitan centres-and the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore should know this-zoning laws would have to be enacted prohibiting the obstruction of any building that would block the sun from anyone who has installed a solar heating device. If you knew there was a property immediately to the south of you on which someone intended to build a high rise building and you had put solar heating panels on your house, if a law was in place preventing anyone from shading your property it would effectively restrict the height of any building to the south. If there were no law, obviously putting on solar panels would be a tremendous risk. Anyone could build immediately to the south, southeast or southwest of you and block the sun. That would defeat your purpose. Your expenditure on solar panels would be for naught.
So there is indeed a cost, direct and indirect, in using solar panels. This is a very small criticism, but it is valid. It points out one of the major problems, particularly in urban municipalities, in using solar heat. The situation is not the same in the large rural areas such as those represented by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin and myself. However, there is that danger in our communities.
The hon. member for Lachine-Lakeshore made a particularly valuable contribution. However, I have to argue with him. He stated that solar panels used for space heating and hot water heating in fact paid for themselves. I have on my desk a volume over three inches thick which covers legislation passed in the United States.
I am sure members opposite are aware of the exposition which took place in New York City last September. It covered virtually all of the equipment made by solar heating appliance manufacturers. I have gone into a great deal of research. To the best of my knowledge, at this point in time there are very few solar heating units, particularly in Canada, which will pay their own way in cost savings. It is still cheaper to use fossil fuels to heat one's home. That is unfortunate.
The hon. member for Wetaskiwin mentioned the credit incentive. I intend to dwell on that for a few moments. The hon. member for Lachine-Lakeshore made a particularly valid point. He said this could be a major industry for Canada. Everyone knows that in Arizona you can use solar heating panels. We have all seen pictures of solar heating panels that completely heat a home. I would think that in Arizona there would be absolutely no problem whatsoever. I do not care whether it is energy in the form of hot air, hot water or some other medium; you have a vehicle to contain heat and then diffuse it when it is needed.
In places like Arizona and the southwest United States, there is no problem. However, the type of solar heating that is needed is the type which would suit the northern hemisphere, that part of Canada and the United States which lies north of the fortieth or forty-fifth parallel, going up, I suggest with some care, as far as the fifty-fifth parallel. That area contains a large number of people, all of whom could benefit from wide Canadian expertise in solar heating.
One way we could help tremendously would be to properly support the Canadian Standards Association in preparing standards. All members will concede that in a new industry like this there will obviously be fly-by-night operators. They move in, make a quick buck from an unsuspecting individual and move out again. That happens with every new industry that comes along. This happens not only in Canada, but in the United States and other areas. It happened when swimming pools became popular as well as asphalt driveways. It happens now in the construction industry in the building of chimneys. It happens in many areas and we have to put up with it.
In the few minutes I have left, I want to say how much I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member for Wetaskiwin. He pointed out that while the technology does exist, it is not all paid for. There must be a credit in order to help pay for this. The hon. member suggested a tax credit. That makes considerable sense.
The hon. member pointed out that in President Carter's energy package there is a tax credit that not only enables an individual to use solar energy as an alternative, but encourages its use. That is the key. There has to be some encouragement to develop a solar energy industry.
Possibly I should have mentioned it earlier, but I assume the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) includes in solar energy energy from wind. After all, wind is produced by the sun. In the county south of me, Wellington, a Mr. Ball has a solar wind-driven generating system in his home.

February 3, 1978


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being five o'clock this House stands
Use of Solar Energy
adjourned until Monday at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order
2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, February 6, 1978