1978-12-15

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, since Christmas is approximately one week away.
In an in-house publication put out by Agriculture Canada on November 28, entitled "Food Outlook", under the heading "Poultry" is found the following:
Turkey supplies will be short for Christmas, causing much higher retail prices than a year ago.
In view of that, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I move:
That this House directs the Minister of Agriculture to apologize to his colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, whom he embarrassed in the House and seriously undermined and, furthermore, that he apologize to Canadian consumers who are forced to pay higher prices for turkeys because of the minister's refusal to accept the advice of his own department.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
As capital at reasonable rates of interest is a vital necessity for starting up and expanding farming and industrial operations, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa-Carle-ton (Mrs. Pigott):
That this House directs the Minister of Finance to make available low-interest, government-backed loans to enable young men and women to get started in business and farming, and small businesses and farming operations which need
additional capital for expansion to be able to obtain it at rates of interest they can afford.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House, noting that the Prime Minister stated yesterday that he is the best person not only in his own party but in all of Canada, cites-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I never stated that. I might believe it, but I did not state it.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has confirmed the point. My motion continues:
-this as both proof that he has succumbed to the Greek vice of hubris, and even after 11 years in the light of the blinding sun has not been able to distinguish the forms from the substance, thus instructs him to retreat to the cave forthwith.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


AIR CANADA
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity which flows out of the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) press conference yesterday.
In view of the incredible appointment of Bryce Mackasey as chairman of the board of Air Canada, the airline owned by the people of Canada which is its flagship abroad and just recently
80067-65^2


operated at a profit, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald):
That in view of the new chairman's history of spending binges at the Post Office and the Unemployment Insurance Commission, this House requests the Prime Minister to assure concerned Canadians that the new chairman is to play the political figurehead role which he plays so well, but is to have nothing to do with the operations of the airline.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PICKETING AT WEST DOOR-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the fact that a woman has been picketing the west door of the House of Commons for many weeks now, that she is nearing the point where her inclusion in the Guiness Book of Records for the longest one-person protest in Canadian history is a distinct possibility, and that her placard is totally incomprehensible to anyone seeking to learn the point of her protest, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That the Prime Minister, in the finest tradition of Christmas and showing true Christmas spirit, find out what this woman's problem is and see if he can offer any assistance to her.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Rob Parker (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the discriminatory appointment of the new chairman of the board of Air Canada, which clearly overlooked 12 equally distinguished losers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Hare):
That this House instructs the government to create a new Canadian honour, to be known as the DFC, equal in rank to the Order of Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom).
[Mr. Nowlan.J


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my motion arises out of a secret memo from a senior official in the Canadian Unity Information Office who states their activities will become more politicized and calls their minister, the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts), accident prone. It states:
Mr. Roberts does not know what we are doing or why we are doing it and probably doesn't care a hell of a lot as long as it doesn't get him into trouble.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin):
That this House refers the estimates for the Canadian Unity Information Office to the appropriate committee for investigation and report, and requests that the minister resign.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS PROPOSED OFFICE IN WINNIPEG, MAN.-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Jack Hare (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity.
Recently, because the government finds itself bereft of representation in the province of Manitoba-even St. Boniface, its safest seat in the west, having been lost-it has decided to open an office in Winnipeg headed by the Minister for Federal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Reid).
Because sufficient funds have already been spent for citizen representation in Manitoba, and because the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River is not an elected advocate of Manitoba's interests, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie):
That the plans for this new office be scrapped.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


[ Translation]


UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the alarming unemployment rate is liable to impede the national economy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Janelle):
That the House urge the Department of Employment and Immigration to disclose immediately the estimates earmarked for the Canada Work and Young Canada Works programs to reassure the many victims of unemployment in eastern Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and it relates to his announcement last evening concerning the appointment of Bryce Mack-asey as chairman of the board of Air Canada.
In view of this surprising announcement by the Prime Minister, taking into account the outstanding history of Air Canada as one of the few Crown corporations that has had very high public esteem, one that has been relatively free of political influence on the part of a series of successive governments, and one that has-as my colleague, the hon. member for Annapolis Valley, pointed out-just recently made a profit, and considering that in one stroke the Prime Minister has now downgraded both the independence and objectivity, and possibly the efficiency of Air Canada in view of Mr. Mackasey's record with the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the Post Office, will the Prime Minister indicate why he made this appointment, particularly in view of the Estey report of 1975 which said, in reference to the appointment of senior personnel as directors-


Some hon. Members:: Order.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the question is clear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member had a long introduction and was going to ask something of the Prime Minister. I did note that he used the word "downgraded" in association with the appointment of a former cabinet minister to the chairmanship of the board of Air Canada.
I do not remember that hon. member opposite saying to the Hon. Bryce Mackasey, when he was a minister or present in the House, that he was not an honourable man or was not an intelligent or capable man. Therefore, I can only conclude that in the mind of the hon. member, a man who has served his country well in the House of Commons is not competent to serve his country well in other pursuits. This is not the view of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that two of the first comments by Mr. Mackasey, in talking today about his new role, were that he would continue to make political speeches but at a lower profile, and that he planned to paint the airline green, I wonder whether the Prime Minister could indicate if chairman Mackasey will be performing a suitable role in the important task of chairman of the board of Air Canada, whether he is simply in a holding pattern waiting for some future development in his political career, or does he think these kinds of statements are appropriate for the head of a large Crown corporation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I challenge the hon. member's quotation of Mr. Mackasey. I would not believe he said such a thing. I believe the hon. member is not quoting him accurately.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the Prime Minister himself will check into these comments, and that he would also check the Estey report in terms of the appropriateness of this kind of appointment to Air Canada.
In view of the fact that there seems to have been no consultation with Air Canada or with anyone who knows something about planes, such as the Minister of Transport, and that the only reaction in cabinet was one of applause, could the Prime Minister indicate what kind of guidelines, with specific reference to the very rapid technological changes and sophistication of air travel-and given all the major question that will need to be resolved in the coming months with respect to Canada's national airline-had application to the appointment of Mr. Mackasey to this very important and sensitive position.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member suggests that I check what Mr. Mackasey said. I asked my colleague, who assured me that he said he would continue to speak about national unity. It is typical of that hon. member and the party opposite that they think when a person talks of national unity


Oral Questions
he is making a political speech. We think that it is also the duty of all Canadians to concern themselves with this issue.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Eglinton on a supplementary.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Rob Parker: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Would he tell the House whether a memorandum written by the Minister of National Revenue, dated November 27, 1978, expressed official government policy when it noted that the entire direction for the next four months must be measured against political objectives?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is not a supplementary question.


EMPLOYMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question may not have been supplementary, but it was relevant. I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question which concerns the women of Canada.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration said in this House as recently as November 30 that affirmative action programs for women in Canada had already been put in place. Considering that this is simply not the case, because the regional offices which are essential to the implementation of affirmative action programs have not even been filled, and it has been ten months since the promise was made, will the Prime Minister tell the House when the government plans to live up to this ten-month old promise?


Mr. Frank Maine (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, staffing and training for the affirmative action offices should be in place by February, 1979, and the program is expected to be operational by April, 1979.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct the question to the Prime Minister, as head of the government. The Minister of Employment and Immigration told the House on November 30 that the program had already been put in place, the minister had said the same thing prior to that date.
Since it will be almost one year from the time the promise was made until the program is implemented, I would like to ask the Prime Minister another question about women's programs. Considering that the government, in its cutbacks, plans to eliminate a number of specific programs concerned with problems which women face-I am thinking specifically of the Outreach program which in Ontario alone has provided ben-

efits for 12,000 women by keeping them off welfare and unemployment insurance-will the government reconsider this matter and restore these essential women's programs.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is typical of the NDP that they only notice how good the government's programs are when we curtail the rate of growth of those programs. I thank the hon. member for the backhanded compliment. We still have many excellent programs in order to promote the advancement of women both inside and outside the public service, in the employment of Canada. Great sums are still being spent on such programs.
If the rate of growth has been curtailed in that area, then it has also been curtailed in other areas, as the hon. member knows. He should also know that the whole purpose of the government is to make sure that its expenditures do not grow any faster than the economy as a whole. I think that is a reasonable proposition.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, as usual, the Prime Minister deliberately misheard the question. I referred the Prime Minister to a statement made in the House by a minister, which was false: the minister told the House on November 30 that the affirmative action programs had been put in place. They have not been put in place.
Again, since a number of specific programs are being curtailed or eliminated by the government-I am thinking particularly of the Outreach program which has kept thousands of Canadian women off unemployment insurance and welfare- would the Prime Minister not agree that it is preferable for people to be working rather than collecting welfare and, if so, because women particularly are hit by unemployment, will he reconsider the government's priorities and re-establish these programs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, our priorities have not changed. Just a moment ago the hon. parliamentary secretary indicated the date on which this particular program would be implemented; therefore, the priorities have not changed.
What I am trying to make the leader of the New Democratic Party understand, and what he has some difficulty understanding, is that the rate of growth of total government expenditures-federal, provincial and municipal-had been judged too high at all levels. All of us must reduce somewhat the rate of growth. That does not mean we cut back or destroy programs; it means we do not continue growing as fast as had been planned. The hon. member should know that, when he looks at the size of his party: it does not grow as fast as he planned.


REQUEST FOR MEASURES TO REDUCE COMMERCIAL DEFICIT-MINISTER'S POSITION
[Stage Direction]
Mir. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Considering that Canada's commercial deficit for manufactured goods has gone up from $2.2 billion in 1970 to $11.5 billion in 1977, does the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce intend to announce shortly some measures meant to correct that situation?
Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, this question has been asked a number of times and I should like to put the record straight on it.
Since 1961, Canada's exports of fully manufactured goods have increased 20 times, while in the same period Canada's imports of fully manufactured goods have increased about five times. It can readily be seen from those figures that growth in exports of fully manufactured goods is increasing faster than imports of fully manufactured goods.
Fully manufactured goods coming into Canada are priced on the international market; so, naturally, with an 85-cent dollar their price is high. The volume of imports is not necessarily up over last year, but the price of those imports is up over last year because of the relationship of the dollar, and that is what shows up in the figures.


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT WILL INTERVENE AT GATT
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the views of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce are certainly not shared by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. The minister claims that he is making efforts; on the basis of the results obtained, his efforts must certainly be quite inadequate, because the trade deficit I have indicated represents a great many jobs lost every year in the manufacturing industry. Could the minister advise the House whether, during the current GATT negotiations, he intends to make representations to obtain for our manufacturers advantages similar to those enjoyed by foreign manufacturers?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the House that my department is playing a very major role in the multilateral trade negotiations. I also want to assure the hon. member that we will have better access to foreign markets after the multilateral trade negotiations are concluded. Therefore, our manufacturers will be greatly assisted by the results of those negotiations.
Oral Questions FISHERIES


OPENING OF CLAM BEDS IN EASTERN CANADA
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment.
In view of the problems that have been experienced in the clam beds of eastern Canada as a result of regulations which mean that decisions are made in Ottawa, rather than at the site of operations, can the minister tell me if there has been any change, or will the beds be given immediate attention when they are ready for digging, instead of their opening being delayed?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised this matter before and I asked the region to provide me with information, which I shall, of course, pass on to him.
I might say that the only reason the regulations have to be dealt with in Ottawa is that they are part of the order in council process. For that reason they cannot be delegated, but they originate in the regions. It is my policy to decentralize as much decision-making to the regional managers as is legally allowable.


Fred Alward McCain: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It is my understanding that regional decisions are to be made in class 1 and class 2 beds, but in the class 3 beds decision can only be made in Ottawa. Would the minister assure the industry that he will take the necessary steps to put the decision-making process at the scene of the operation, so that it may be in place at the earliest opportunity for the greatest possible economic advantage to the clam diggers?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I have no difficulty at all with the hon. member's proposal. These regulations are put in because of the danger that clams and certain other species have of being hazardous to health. Where the ban can be lifted, we do so as quickly as possible; but we have to make very cautious approaches because if there is one way of wiping out an industry, it is to have the sort of accident that can occur through carelessness.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. A publication put out by Agriculture Canada pretty well confirms what the minister told the House regarding a short supply of turkeys which would force up prices. I might say it seriously undermined the credibility of the Minister of Agriculture in this House.


Oral Questions
I ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs if he could tell the House whether he has investigated this matter and whether there has been a substantial price differential as a result of short supply. Also, what recommendations can he make to the House to ensure that there will be adequate supplies of turkeys at reasonable prices?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Agriculture pointed out a day or so ago, prices have declined in recent days. We are very gratified by that. Although they are higher than last year, it is our feeling that the high price has been due to lack of supply in response to the increasing demand due to higher beef prices.
I might say that the National Farm Products Marketing Council did authorize an increase in quota for next year and that is a good thing, but it might not help for this Christmas.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, could the minister explain to the House how it was possible for the government to underestimate the market situation, knowing that there was this change in beef prices? Could the minister also tell the House what advice he has with respect to the failure of the council to adequately forecast the situation? If the honourable turkey, the Minister of Agriculture, cannot restrain himself-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


James Aloysius McGrath: -I will let the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs carve him up.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: He is doing a nice job of carving up the minister, who sounds like a turkey stuffed with his own rhetoric.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member has had an adequate oportunity to put his supplementary question.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I lost the question, with all the rhetoric of the hon. member.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.


An hon. Member:: Another turkey.


Henry Perrin Beatty: I wonder if he could confirm the authenticity of the report which appears on the front page of today's Ottawa Journal and purports to report on a memorandum written by
[Mr. McGrath.J
the executive director of the Canadian Unity Information Office which accuses its former minister, the Secretary of State, of being "somewhat accident prone" and states:
Mr. Roberts does not know what we are doing, why we are doing it and probably doesn't care a hell of a lot as long as it doesn't get him into trouble.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am told that such a document does exist and that it was the opinion an official expressed to his superior. Obviously, this government believes in free opinions. The note was an internal one. I can assure the House that I do not share the view of the official. I do know, from discussions and listening to the minister many times, that he is, on the contrary, a very intelligent and ardent proponent of national unity and all aspects of it.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister will be aware, the memorandum is extremely critical of the effectiveness of the Secretary of State. It was purportedly written because of the author's concern over the issue of ministerial responsibility in the House of Commons for the Canadian Unity Information Office.
May I ask the Prime Minister, in view of the statement contained in the memo that, in summary, "we cannot afford the risk of having our effectiveness reduced because the minister does not know," to indicate to the House whether the responsibility for reporting to parliament was taken away from the Secretary of State and given to the Minister of Justice because the Prime Minister shared the concern that the Secretary of State was not properly and effectively operating on behalf of the Canadian Unity Informatin Office?
[DOT] (U32)


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker; even prior to the appointment of the Minister of Justice he was the minister to whom this group reported. That was at the time he was minister of state for federal-provincial relations. The estimates were in the Secretary of State's department because the Minister of Justice, then minister of state for federal-provincial relations, did not have estimates of his own. They had been part of the Privy Council estimates. Therefore, it was an administrative arrangement. However, the reporting was done to the present Minister of Justice. It remains with him. I, of course, have great confidence in him as I do in all my ministers.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Rob Parker: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister: it relates to a memorandum written by the Minister of National Revenue on November 27, headed "Stricly confidential". Was the minister expressing government policy when he wrote:
-the entire direction of my efforts must be measured against political objectives.


He further said he must clearly avoid, at all costs, speaking to delegations, signing mail dealing with legislation, and so on. Is that the policy of this government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I understand the memorandum is one written by the minister to his political staff. As the House knows, each minister-and, indeed, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party-has persons called political people in their offices. It was his indication to them, I understand, that he wanted to achieve a high profile-and I believe he has done that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Rob Parker: Can the Prime Minister confirm that he is now heading a coalition government as in the same memorandum the minister expressed his intention to become a member of the CCF, a "cutting controversial figure"?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AIR TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
SUGGESTION MPs TRAVEL ON CANADIAN ROUTES BY CANADIAN AIRCRAFT
Hon. Ron Basford (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In his absence I will direct it to the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Ronald Basford: In recognition of Canada being a Pacific Rim country, and Vancouver being Canada's gateway to the Orient, will the Prime Minister endeavour to persuade the Leader of the Opposition and the journalists travelling with him to visit Tokyo to travel via Vancouver and a Canadian route, rather than via Los Angeles and Hawaii?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that if he uses the pass issued to him by the Canadian airlines, there will be no criticism from this side of the House, particularly if he travels on a Canadian route.
Oral Questions


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister please advise this House who will be the next chief justice in this country, particularly the one in British Columbia?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not seem to know that the chief justice is well and is performing very well.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Not in British Columbia.


AIR CANADA
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, who is extending his mettle from the press conference of yesterday. It relates to the serious question asked by the hon. member for Egmont about the appointment of Mr. Mackasey to the chairmanship of Air Canada.
In order to try to assess the value judgment of the Prime Minister, and without getting into dialectical debating points about the hon. members who have served their country well and are suggesting national unity red-herrings-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Does the Prime Minister honestly believe, in view of the record of Mr. Mackasey when he was the minister responsible for the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the minister responsible for the Post Office, that his appointment to Air Canada measures up to the stature referred to in Judge Estey's report in 1975 when, in talking about directors of the board, the dominant governing force in the corporation's management structure, he said that appointees should have that stature to give the independence of thought that the position desires? Does the Prime Minister honestly think, in view of that person's record here legislatively, that he should be chairman of the board of the people's airline?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is one record that Mr. Mackasey has: it is not with people who are the hon. member's friends, but with the ordinary people in Canada, the little man, the workers, the people in all categories of the population. I think his record in that area is sufficiently well proven that he will improve in every way possible the services of Air Canada.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, having served in this House with Mr. Mackasey, and appreciating very much his Irish nature and his compassion for people, I agree in part with the Prime Minister's answer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
2172


Oral Questions


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: However, are the standards for the chairman of Air Canada determined by a person's compassion for little people and not his outlook in many other areas? With regard to this appointment, is this the type of precedent the Prime Minister will follow in other areas? I might believe that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is a very interesting individual, who personally I might have had some very interesting times with-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Is he going to be the new president of, for example, the CBC?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I know of many of the qualifications of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce for that particular post. However, if the hon. member would tell me some more about the interesting times he has had with the minister, I would perhaps discover some of his further qualifications.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
In view of the fact the proposed merger between Simpsons-Sears and Simpsons, which in effect is a takeover by Simp-sons-Sears of Simpsons, increases the control of corporate power in the hands of a few, increases the amount of foreign ownership of Canadian industry and has many other disadvantages for this country, will the minister consider having this matter referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs for review before the merger is approved?
Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, the Foreign Investment Review Agency comes before the committee when it is considering my estimates. At that time its work can be fully examined. Any particular case can be examined during the study of those estimates. This particular case increases the ownership of a company doing business in Canada, namely, Sears. With this recent acceptance, as much as 75 per cent of it will be owned in Canada. However, the final decision as to whether the merger takes place or not is in the hands of the shareholders.
With regard to Simpsons, they are nearly 100 per cent Canadian. They can make a choice whether they want to accept the Hudson's Bay offer, a very good company which had had tremendous expansion in Canada over the last ten or 15 years and is a great merchandiser, or having greater

participation and ownership in Sears, also a great merchandiser in Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I remind the minister that the kind of review he talks about is after the event, not before, which was the point of my question. My supplementary question is based on the fact that in 1977 there were 193 foreign takeovers in Canada, the largest number in history.
In view of the fact that it looks as though that number will be exceeded in 1978, is the minister not concerned about this increasing degree of foreign ownership in Canada, and does he not think it time for the government to pay attention to the will of parliament when it passed the Foreign Investment Review Act-that we should move in the direction of greater Canadian ownership, not greater foreign ownership, as is happening under the policies of the present minister?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Let me explain this very carefully to the hon. member and to the House. About one-third of the supposed foreign takeovers which occur in Canada involve a foreign company selling its operation in a foreign land and a subsidiary in Canada being part and parcel of that agreement. In other words, in one-third of the applications an American company is really taking over another American company in Canada. Or, quite often, a German company is taking over another German company in Canada. Recently there were a number of Swedish cases.
In all cases we seek to determine a significant advantage to Canada. If the hon. member would add up the number of jobs we have created by allowing foreign investment in Canada and would calculate the increased degree of Canadian ownership, he would really get an idea of what FIRA is doing.
In the Simpsons' case, for example, Canadian ownership went up to 75 per cent from 60 per cent. Much more research and development is being done in Canada now because of Foreign Investment Review Agency demands. How many more jobs has this research and development created in Canada? These are questions the hon. member should consider before he concludes that the Foreign Investment Review Agency is not serving Canada very well. I think it is serving us very well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POST OFFICE
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Public Works, but I see he is not here today. I do, though, have a question I was intending to put to the Postmaster General next week and I will ask that one today.


Lions Clubs from all over the world are holding their annual convention in Montreal next year. A few weeks ago, in answer to a question, the minister said consideration was being given by his department to recognizing the work of Lions Clubs all over the world, perhaps by issuing a commemorative stamp. I wonder whether the committee which is studying that matter has yet made a decision and whether it is in the affirmative.


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge the committee has not yet finished its exploration of what is possible in connection with the Lions Club celebrations during their convention in Montreal next year. However, 1 can assure the hon. member that because of pressure from this side of the House, as well as from the other side, without taking note of pressures from countless other Canadians, we will do our utmost to find a way by which Lions Club members would be satisfied in commemorating this event in Montreal.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion concerning subsidiary development agreements with the province of Ontario. I want to congratulate him on the forestry management agreement involving some $71 million which was signed a week ago today and which will do a great deal for that industry.
In view of the termination next spring of the ARDA agreement which has done a great deal for rural development in northern Ontario, can the minister tell us whether a new agreement will be signed with Ontario to ensure the development of the northern part of the province and its resources in terms of minerals, agriculture, tourism and industry?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: I just want to correct the figure the hon. member quoted. The agreement which was signed in connection with forestry last week involved a commitment of $82 million, $41 million of this coming from DREE. As to his question, I hope the negotiations with the government of Ontario presently taking place will allow us to sign an agreement which will probably start early in the new fiscal year of 1979-80.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. As inflation in the United States is now pushing to 10 per cent and as, in years past, the government has been saying that Canadian inflation
Oral Questions
is largely dependent on inflation abroad and not due to internal conditions, does the hon. gentleman believe that this steadily rising U.S. inflation rate will allow the economy to achieve the 6 per cent inflation rate forecast for the year end, or the 4 per cent figure forecast when the AIB was first established?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: I recognize, of course, that the level of inflation is going up in the United States and that ours is going down, but I do not think inflation in the United States will lead us to miss our target in Canada. We have a good chance of realizing our goals. It will, nevertheless, affect our situation here. There are, I am pleased to say, many observers who think that at this moment the pressure of inflation is lessening in the United States because of a change in the monetary policy of that country.


William Gordon Ritchie: Does the minister contemplate taking any further significant steps to contain the effects of U.S. inflation for example, by giving more support to the dollar?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid there is not much I can do about it at this time. It is evident that if Canadians demonstrate a lot more discrimination when they choose consumer products in Canada, and select Canadian goods over imported goods, they can certainly do a lot too to help. As to the balance of payments, if Canadians stay away from the United States because of the price increases there, they will certainly help improve our position as far as the tourist industry is concerned.


PENITENTIARIES
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. It concerns a number of representations I have received in recent days against what is purported to be a cutback in the chaplaincy service in penitentiaries across Canada.
In committee, the commissioner stated there had been no formal notices of lay-offs sent to anyone in the chaplaincy service. In view of reports I have received to the contrary, can the Solicitor General tell us exactly what is going on? Can he assure us that there has been, and will be, no reduction in the chaplaincy service from the small number of people who perform a most important and necessary service?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: I have nothing to add to the information which was given to the committee at the time the hon. lady was present at that committee meeting. I cannot assure her that there will not be a reduction in the number of chaplains within the service, for the reasons I gave to one of her hon. friends when this matter was raised. However, I will undertake to advise the hon. lady when
2174


Oral Questions
decisions are to be made. As to specific notices to which she has referred, I will look into that matter further.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the reports I have heard do not concern only one region; they come from regions all across the country. There is some indication that notices of a verbal nature, not of a formal, written nature, have been given which would result in cutbacks right across the country. If this is the case, would the minister reconsider the whole policy of proceeding in that way?


Mr. Blais:: I will undertake to look into the matter further. However, it has always been my practice to receive representations, from whatever quarter, to analyse them carefully and then to make a decision. I will advise the hon. lady of that decision when it is made.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. After meeting with the maritime chiefs for a few minutes yesterday-although there was no discussion of substance-can the hon. lady provide an assurance that she will meet with the maritime chiefs in January? Perhaps she could send them a letter to that effect.
Can she also undertake to rescind the present contract signed by her regional officials on Blue Cross and the Blue Shield payment plan, which is an unacceptable contract to the maritime chiefs and was implemented on December 1 without their consent and without adequate consultation with them?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I am not aware of the latter part of the question and I will inquire in my department as to what it is all about. As to the first part of the question, it was difficult to have a discussion of substance in the minute when I was at the door and 30 persons were trying to get into the room while I was trying to get out with the other members of the committee. If the hon. member had not sent them to that room, I would have met them in my office.
I can confirm to the House-something which I have already done a few times-that I did send a telegram on Monday or Tuesday morning on receiving telegrams from the 40 different delegations of Indian chiefs in Canada, telling them that I would meet with them and that I was recommending that our technical people first meet immediately and then we would meet together in the second part of January, and that for a very good reason. I think it would be better and less expensive for everyone concerned if I went to their regions of the country instead of having huge delegations come to Ottawa, as they did yesterday, at public expense.


Paul Yewchuk: The minister seems to be attributing powers to me that I do not have in so far as the behaviour of the maritime chiefs is concerned. I would like to ask her another question concerning the new guidelines which in effect mean a reduction of the health services, such as dental and optometric services, in various areas. Would she agree to suspend the guidelines, as apparently has been done in Manitoba, at least until she has had a chance to talk to the maritime chiefs and obtain their views on these matters?


Monique Bégin: I welcome the opportunity to clarify to the hon. member once more the fundamental reason for these guidelines. These are guidelines for my officers to keep any abuse in check. I want that to be quite clear.
It is very easy to be irresponsible and to sign any request without even looking into it. I need the co-operation of the chiefs so that those in need receive what is meant for them. 1 said they would all receive whatever care they need in terms of dental services, eyeglasses, and so on. We are not speaking of the health delivery service but, rather, of four items which involve drugs, eyeglasses, transportation and dental costs. The hon. member is fully aware of that. All the Indians in need will receive these services, which amount to 50 per cent more than provincial welfare.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Although my shy and retiring nature will not allow me to ask him whether he will use his pass to go to Jamaica later this month, I would like to know whether that visit will be an official one when he meets with Prime Minister Manley. If it is, could he tell the House what will be on the agenda and whether he will be discussing such things as the north-south dialogue and the economic rearrangement as a result of third world exigencies?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thought the announcement of the summit had been made. Certainly I spoke about it at some length at my press conference yesterday. It will be a summit attended by something like seven, eight or nine heads of government and heads of state.
Concerning the hon. member's shyness, let me tell him that 1 will use my pass on Air Canada, if it is convenient, and if not I will attempt to fly to that summit on a Department of Transport JetStar.
There is no agenda: it is a summit convened by Mr. Manley and Chancellor Schmidt of Germany to develop the idea that it would be excellent, in order to break the log-jam in the dialogue between the north and south, if we could get some heads of government from the group of northern countries and some from the south to discuss, without an agenda, all the attendant problems with regard to disparities between the


third world and the industrialized nations and attempt to find solutions as the Commonwealth did when we set up the McIntyre committee after the Commonwealth meeting in Kingston in 1973. We would attempt, once again, to improve the quality of the understanding of the dialogue between the so-called third world countries and the developed world.
It will be a rather unstructured meeting. I do not expect there will be resolutions or communiques and I have not encouraged the press to attend it as an event that would draw a great deal of public attention.


SOCIAL INSURANCE
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration, but in his absence I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary. It deals with the continuing concern over the use of the social insurance number beyond the original intention of the federal government.
I am convinced, as are many other Canadians, that the major demand for the use of the SIN is made by agencies and departments of provinces which require this number for the issuing of permits and licences. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could confirm that the committee which will be formed in February will bring into public view the opinions of the provinces, and will he say who will participate in this committee and whether we will have some agreement on the use of the SIN in future years?


Francis William (Frank) Maine: I am sure the minister will want a full discussion on the use of the SIN, and I am sure the recommendation of the hon. member will be viewed favourably in so far as dialoguing with the provinces on this matter is concerned.
I should like to add that the use of the SIN in many cases is voluntary and well received. I refer to Operation Identification whereby local police officers, in co-operation with householders, use the SIN to identify valuable items in the home. Many persons who have had returned stolen goods so identified are very happy with the voluntary use of the SIN.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: My question is on the continuation of the turkey war and I should like to direct it to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
We have noticed that the price of turkeys in Ontario, for Christmas, is down but generally is remaining very high in the rest of the country. In view of the fact that the farmer receives
Oral Questions
less for turkeys in western Canada and Ontario when he sells them, but the consumer in Winnipeg continues to pay about 20 cents more and the producer is getting only four or five cents less for them, what is the reason for this discrepancy? Is it that there is more corporate concentration at the retail end on the prairies? Can the minister check into it and see if he can do something about it?


William Warren Allmand: I read a news report that turkey prices were lower in Ontario than in the rest of the country, but I checked ads in Quebec, for example, and found that prices there were pretty much the same as in Ontario. I am not sure about the west and I am not sure about the reason for the differential, but I am willing to look into it.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity to take a look at the momorandum in relation to the Canadian Unity Information Office written by a former executive assistant to the economic super minister.
As the Prime Minister will have noted, there is a reference in that memorandum to the activities of the information office becoming "more politicized" over the next few weeks and months, and then there is a specific reference to the hiring of advertising agencies.
Can the Prime Minister tell the House which agencies it is contemplated will be hired which will generate political controversy, and what are the kinds of actions contemplated, to his knowledge, by the Canadian Unity Information Office that will escalate the reputation of that office as a politicized group?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will defer to the Minister of Justice who can give more details on this particular group, but the House is aware of the fact that there is a referendum bill before the House and that we intend to take a very active part in promoting the Canadian point of view throughout the period preceding any possible federal referendum.
Certainly, we intend to participate actively, as we have been doing, in the political debate on the issue of the separation of Quebec in the period preceding the Quebec referendum. No doubt this is the type of political activity that is contemplated in the memorandum to which the Leader of the Opposition referred.


Charles Joseph Clark: I fail to understand questions relating to the appointment of advertising agencies which are seen by a former political appointee to a political minister, now a member of the Canadian Unity Information Office, being one of the sources of political controversy that the office will have


Privilege-Mr. Abbott
to contemplate. I fail to see how that relates directly to problems which would naturally arise in the putting forward of a federal case.
My supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister is an administrative and structural one. Can the Prime Minister tell the House why the Minister of Justice will be answering in this House in relation to that office, and not the new Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have the same memorandum as the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I see more visible and more politicized as an objective. In the hiring of agencies, of course, we would want to ensure that they were agencies which were not tinged by adverse political influences such as separatism. We would want to ensure that we are hiring agencies which believe in federalism and which will not-


John Edward Broadbent: Tory agencies in Nova Scotia.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There may be some suggestions coming from the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party concerning Tory agencies, but I am sure I can get advice from both sides of the House on this.
As to the reporting of that group to the Minister of Justice, it is simply because the Minister of Justice was the minister to whom this group reported previously. It will continue in that capacity, the Minister of Justice being the lead minister in terms of the referenda bill before the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: What does the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations do?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: What is left?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Abbott) on a question of privilege.


PRIVILEGE
Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Small Business)):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It arises out of a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Parker). As a preliminary point, hon. members are aware that I made a good deal of effort to reduce the burden of paperwork in government. I want to announce happily that I shall not be writing any more memoranda to myself.
I realize the hon. member was attempting to be cutting and controversial. I do not ask him to reserve that field for myself. Also, I realize some of the comments I made in the memoran-
[Mr. Clark.)
dum may have been injudicious. But the hon. member joined two points in his question to the Prime Minister. He said that I would measure everything against political objectives, and that I would refuse to sign mail and meet people. In relation to signing mail, I said only that I did not wish to be submerged by my department in these chores which would prevent me from doing some of the other important things.


Rob Parker: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question of privilege raised by the hon. Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Abbott), perhaps there is some disagreement concerning the exact interpretation of the document in question. Perhaps the minister would be willing to table it. If he is not, I would be willing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is as good a finish as any to a non-procedural point.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.-Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier).
[Editor's note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Martin O'Connell (Minister of Labour) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-30, to amend the Department of Labour Act.


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

Alan Gray Martin: for leave to introduce Bill C-31, to establish the Collective Bargaining Information Centre.


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

John (Jack) Henry Horner: for leave to introduce Bill C-32, to provide for the reporting of information relating to foreign economic boycott requests.


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

John (Jack) Henry Horner: the first reading of Bill S-10 (from the Senate), to facilitate conversion to the metric system of measurement.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Order Paper Questions
(b) Municipality	(c) Cost
Anjou	$735,000
Chelsea	215,000
Clarke City	114,000
Deschambault	181,000
Repentigny	393,000
St. Bruno de Montarville	378,000
St. Justine de Newton	96,000
St. Lazare	85,000
(d) Yes.	
Note: In addition to the single purpose buildings, four General purpose buildings were completed in the Province of Quebec during the period 1976-04-01 to 1978-03-31, which contained postal facilities and tenders were called:
% OF BUILDING USED MUNICIPALITY	BY POST OFFICE
Campbell's Bay	31
Contrecoeur	50
Mount Laurier	60
St.-Hyacinthe	45
*
* *


NON-CANADIAN REGISTERED VESSELS IN CANADIAN WATERS TRADE TABLING OF THIRD SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC BOYCOTTS
Mr. Forrestall: For each year since 1970, what was the (a) name (b) country of registry (c) cargo or purpose of voyage (d) number of voyages made of every non-Canadian registered vessel which operated in Canadian waters north of the 60th parallel, excepting those vessels transporting grain from the Port of Churchill?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I have the honour to table in both official languages the third semi-annual report on international economic boycotts.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 82, 152, 387,516, 547, 549 and 586.
[ Text]


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): During the fiscal year 1976-77 and 1977-78, did the Department of Public Works construct any buildings which were used as post offices in the Province of Quebec and, if so (a) how many (b) in which municipalities (c) at what cost (d) were tenders called?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: (a) Public Works Canada completed eight single purpose buildings to be used as post offices in the province of Quebec, during 1976-77 and 1977-78.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: 1971
1973
(a) Vessel's name	(b) Country of Registry	(c) Cargo	(d) TripsThuntank VI	Great Britain	Petroleum	1Thoradan	Denmark	General	1Esso Panang	Panama	Petroleum	1Trojaland	Sweden	General	1Thuleland	Sweden	Petroleum	1Tavastland	Sweden	Petroleum	1Esso Panang	Panama	Petroleum	1Federal Hudson	Great Britain	General	1Palva	Finland	Petroleum	1Helgadan	Denmark	General	1Thebeland	Sweden	General	1Thoradan	Denmark	General	1Englishman	Great Britain	General	1Duhallow	Great Britain	Asbestos	2Northern Shell	Great Britain	Petroleum	1Poolzee	Netherland	Asbestos	1Messiniaki	Greece	Petroleum	1Tavasland	Sweden	Petroleum	1Federal Hudson	Great Britain	General	1Salerno	Great Britain	General	1Wilke	Finland	Petroleum	1Thebeland	Sweden	General	1Palva	Finland	Petroleum	1Esso Halifax	Liberia	Petroleum	1Helgadan	Denmark	General	1Cotswold	Great Britain	Asbestos	1Buccleuch	Great Britain	Asbestos	2Northern Shell	Great Britain	Petroleum	1Thuleland	Sweden	Petroleum	1
Order Paper Questions
(a) Vessel's name (b) Country of (c) Cargo Registry
Tundraland Thora Dan Wilke
Finnmaster
Salerno
Atherstone
Wilke
Nordic Ranger Inland
Nordic Regent Palva
Tundraland
Thuleland
Pinnebog
City of Corinth Palva
Esso Bombay Wilke
Nordic Rover Artherstone Northern Steel Kivisto Tundraland
Duivendrecht Esso Bahamas Scherpendrecht H-1070 Palva
Dordrecht Gothic Wasa
Esso Bahamas Lunni Pinnebog Baltic Wasa
Wulven Drecht Scherpendrecht Duivendrecht H-1070
Celtic Wasa
Gothic Wasa
Deltadrecht Dordrecht Lunni Pinnebog Esso Bahamas Tozui Maru
Sweden
Denmark
Finland
Finland Great Britain Great Britain Finland Liberia Great Britain Norway Finland Great Britain Great Britain U.S.A.
Great Britain
Finland
Panama
Finland
Liberia
Great Britain
Panama
Panama
Great Britain
Netherland
Liberia
Netherland
Bermuda
Finland
Netherland
Sweden
Liberia
Finland

Sweden
Netherland
Netherland
Netherland
Bermuda
Sweden
Sweden
Netherland
Netherland
Finland

Liberia
Japan
General
General
Petroleum
General
General
Asbestos
Petroleum
Asbestos
General
Asbestos
Petroleum
General
Petroleum
Petroleum
General
Petroleum
Petroleum
Petroleum
Asbestos
Asbestos
Petroleum
Petroleum
General
Asbestos
Petroleum
Asbestos
Petroleum
Petroleum
Asbestos
Zinc and Lead
Concentrates
Petroleum
General
Petroleum
Zinc and Lead
Concentrates
Asbestos
Asbestos
Asbestos
Petroleum
Zinc and Lead
Concentrates
Zinc and Lead
Concentrates
Asbestos
Asbestos
Petroleum
Petroleum
Petroleum
N/A
(d) Trips
1
1
3
1
2
1
1
1
3
3
1
2
2
1
2
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
1


Mr. Herbert: During each of the past ten years, what was the estimated loss of revenue in the maintenance of the Crowsnest Pass rates?
lion. No data is available to produce comparable figures for years other than 1974 and 1977.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	How many producer loaded railway cars were involved in the movement of grain in Western Canada for each of the past five crop years?
2.	What is the government's policy on producer loaded cars?
Hon. Otto E. Canada advises as	Lang (Minister of Transport): Transport follows:
1. 1973-74	181
1974-75	96
1975-76	394
1976-77	255
1977-78	2174
Source: Canadian Wheat Board.	
2. There has been no change to the Canada Grains Act which governs the use of producer loaded railway cars.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	What is the total amount accumulated in the Maritime Pollution Claims fund?
2.	How many payments have been made from the Fund and, in each case (a) in what amount (b) to whom (c) on what date?


Otto Emil Lang: 1.	$48,997,810.93 as of October 31, 1978.
2.	Two.
(a) $345.90. (b) Mr. William Guimond, fisherman, Pointe au Pere, Quebec, (c) October 23, 1975.
(a) $300. (b) Mr. Eudore Boudreau, fisherman, Carle-ton, Quebec, (c) January 5, 1977.


Mr. Murta: To date, what was the total cost of operating the Prairie Rail Action Committee?


Otto Emil Lang: The commission on the costs of transporting grain by rail (Snavely Commission) found that for 1974 the total cost of moving grain at Crowsnest pass rates was $231 million. Of this total, revenues accounted for $89.7 million, the federal government paid $52 million in branch line subsidies while the remainder ($89.3 million) was borne by the railways. Mr. Snavely recently updated his work for the year 1977. In this case the total cost was $354 million of which revenues were $114.8 million, subsidies $63.7 million and the railways covered $175.5 mil-


Otto Emil Lang: As of November 15, 1978, the total expenditures for the Prairie Rail Action Committee were $221,135.97.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: 
Mr. Pierre Bussieres (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, Eldorado Nuclear Limited, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Atomic Energy Control Board, National Energy Board and Uranium Canada Limited report as follows: No. '


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


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, December 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Trudeau:
That the following address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General of Canada:
To His Excellency the Right Honourable Jules Leger, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada.
May it please Your Excellency:
The House of Commons, having considered the proposed text of the order in council laid upon the table of the House on December 4, 1978, in relation to the establishment of a Ministry of State for Economic Development, prays that the making of the said order in council be approved.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) has the floor. Before giving him the floor, I should like to indicate to the House that if this debate were to run its full seven-hour course, as has been prescribed by the statute under which we are debating this motion, according to the calculation of the Chair there remains one hour and eleven minutes.
Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, last evening when this proposed proclamation was being discussed, I listened extensively to the contributions of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) and the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). I was struck by the differences in the two contributions. The hon. member for St. John's East wanted me to pay greater attention to the economic advisers in the country, but the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain begged the House to give him one more chance to be a minister. Then he would tell those economic advisers, who advised him when he was a minister in the early 1960s where
Economic Development
to get off. He wanted one more chance to straighten out the economic advisers. The hon. member for St. John's East wanted me to listen to some of the economic advisers, and he claimed that I was not listening. Some of them are perhaps right, but some are perhaps too negative for me.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member, but he is referring to my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). East is east and west is west, and never the twain shall meet.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for making that mistake. One is a serious minded Canadian and the other is a jokester, and I should have had them straightened out as to which is east and which is west.
1 should say that in looking at the economic reports one should study, the vice-chairman of the Conference Board in Canada, with which the Conservative party seems to have some ties, was quoted in the Financial Post of about two weeks ago as suggesting that the province of Alberta would have slower economic growth in the year 1979 than the rest of Canada. I do not know where that economist has been or where he learned his economic trade, but he should not expect me to accept that line of reasoning. I do not know whether I would call it balderdash, but it is certainly chock full of nonsense to my mind. The underlying strength of the economic growth in the province of Alberta will, I think, once again in 1979, if not lead the rest of the country, be very close to it.
Certainly the government is taking action when the Canadian economy is showing definite improvement. Members opposite do not like to hear this and complain from time to time when I make some remarks in this regard. They prefer gloomy news. I remember a year ago being accused of not utilizing capacity in the Canadian manufacturing industry. It was then at about 83 per cent and now it is up pretty close to 88 per cent, representing a substantial improvement in the Canadian manufacturing industry.
To me the Canadian economy is verging on the edge of a gigantic step forward. If anyone wants to consider the reasons, certainly the 85-cent dollar helps substantially; there is no question about that. We have greatly improved productivity in relation to our major trading nation, the United States. We still have problems with unemployment and inflation, but I think we have joined with the provinces in the first ministers' meetings to launch an attack on both these problems.
In looking at the question of unemployment, when I think of the number of jobs my department alone has created in the past year in every province of Canada one can readily see that we have made some tremendous steps forward.
Last evening I mentioned the aircraft industry and I should now mention the textile industry. Many people opposite, Sunday economists, believe we should get out of the textile industry completely. Actually the clothing apparel and fibres industry alone employs over 200,000 Canadians. In the city of


Economic Development
Winnipeg the textile and clothing industry is the largest single employer. My department has done a great deal to enhance the stability of that industry. Manitoba does not particularly appreciate that industry, but it is still playing a major part in the economies of the city of Winnipeg and Manitoba.


An hon. Member:: The same with Drummondville.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes, the same with Drummondville and many other parts of Canada.
A few weeks ago I discussed an able and factual study put out by my department in regard to Canada's manufacturing industries. I was accused by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), who read off a number of newspaper quotations, of having in fact misled the House and the country by quoting actual facts with regard to our exports and imports. As I said today during the question period, this study shows that in 1977 we exported twenty times more fully manufactured goods than we did in 1960.
Let us look at our position in respect of imports of fully manufactured goods. The amount of fully manufactured goods imported in 1977 compared to 1966 has gone up only five times. One can readily see that the gap is narrowing. Perhaps it is not narrowing as fast as one would like, but we are a trading nation and, as I mentioned last evening, we depend on that trade. In order to trade one has to accept goods from other countries.
Naturally we have to meet the competition that exists. I mentioned a couple of particular steps last evening that we are taking to encourage and make Canadian industry better able to meet that competition. If the Ottawa Citizen, the Toronto Star and the Science Council of Canada think I have misrepresented the facts, let them take a look at that document and prove to me where I have done so.
There is no question in my mind that Canada has grown a great deal. Today in nearly every 33-day period we export as much as we did in a full year back in 1960 and 1961. That is an indication of how big we have become as an industrial nation. In every 33 days we export as much as we did in 1960 and 1961. We have become a huge industrial nation. In fact, a trade commissioner from Russia told me we are the sixth largest industrial nation in the world.
In an effort to meet competition we can expect that in the 1980s the president of the new economic board, with its new powers, will do a lot to assist Canada, and will pay greater attention to industry so that we can serve it better.
Members opposite should look at our trade figures. As I have mentioned in this House on many occasions, in 1961 some 22 per cent of our total exports were in grain. That has diminished to about the point where grain products account for 8 per cent or 9 per cent. One would automatically think grain sales have fallen off and we are selling less grain than ever before, but that is not true. In the late 1950s and the early 1960s we averaged about 340 million bushels in grain exports per year. In the late 1960s we averaged about 440 million bushels. In the early 1970s we averaged about 660 million

bushels, and in the last couple of years we have moved 700 million bushels of grain each year for export.
Our exports of fully manufactured goods have gone up substantially. Looking at the same period, in 1960 and 1961 fully manufactured goods accounted for 8.8 per cent of our trade. Automobiles accounted for 4 per cent, nearly half of that total of 8 per cent. Today fully manufactured goods account for something like 34.7 per cent. Automobiles are up as high as 23 per cent. I mentioned earlier in the House that our deficit in respect of automobiles, trucks and parts will be substantially down this year.
In fact, if one wants to look at the basic volume of exports, ignoring the dollar figures completely, our volume this year will be up about 8 per cent. Our volume of imports without looking at the dollar figures will be practically zero. That will give an indication of what is really happening in this country of ours. We are meeting world competition and we are certainly importing less in comparison to what we are exporting.
To me, Canada has great potential to meet the competitive challenges of the 1980s. I am certain that this new thrust of the government to co-ordinate the economic efforts of various departments so that they can work together in making sure our industry is assisted in every possible way to meet that challenge is a move in the right direction. My Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce will work very well with the president of the Board of Economic Development Ministers, and I am certain this will be a beneficial step for this great industrial nation.


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: That was an astounding speech, Mr. Speaker, made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner).


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Thank you for the compliment.


Harvie Andre: The use of the word "astounding" was no compliment. For 15 minutes the minister poured forth a lot of nonsense which, if it were true, would mean that Canada has no unemployment, an inflation rate of 2 per cent and the greatest economy in the world.
I have listened or read the speeches on this debate very attentively in an attempt to get some information on what this new super ministry is all about. Most of the public comment on this new board has been by way of inquiry. The Ottawa Citizen put it as well as anybody in an editorial in the November 25 issue:
The question is, why was it necessary to take this administrative step- haven't these ministers been speaking to each other in the past? Has one hand in cabinet not known what the other has been doing?
I wanted to hear what the new board would be doing that had not been done by the existing structures of this government. Why have these existing structures failed, and if they have, why are they being kept in place? If these existing structures have not failed, then why do we have the new super ministry? I read very carefully the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in looking for an indication as to what


this board would be doing. What I read was a bland, partial budget type of address followed by some bland generalities. If it contained anything at all, the speech indicated that this new board would be removing from the authority of the existing ministries that for which they heretofore had been responsible. The Prime Minister said, as recorded at page 2093 of Hansard'.
-that board will be charged with: defining an integrated federal approach to the provision of direct support to industry and economic development in Canada.
That remark covers almost totally the responsibilities of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The Prime Minister goes on to say that this board will be responsible for "co-ordinating government policy". What are the 23,000 people in the Department of Supply and Services doing? I thought that was their responsibility. This board will also be charged with "reviewing and co-ordinating proposals by departments prior to their submission to cabinet". We have a plethora of cabinet committees charged with that responsibility. The Prime Minister says that "it will be charged with developing mechanisms to improve and to integrate program delivery at the local level". It is difficult to say what that statement means.
I have also familiarized myself with the remarks of the various ministers who have spoken. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) made the incredible comment that "it won't do any harm". He and the new super minister are great friends and have known each other for a long time. He assured us that they could get along. Of all the incredible explanations for the extra expense of this board being imposed on the Canadian taxpayers, that one takes the cake.
The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Les-sard) spoke for 40 minutes. I read his speech twice and I still could not ascertain whether he thought that this board would be helpful or harmful. He spent most of his time talking about his department. All I could gain from his remarks was that he thought that the board probably would not make a lot of difference in the end result and that he would be able to carry on as he had before its establishment.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce offered the incredible explanation that, as a result of the board's establishment, he will now have ten allies to back him up with his proposals when he attends cabinet meetings. That statement implies that before he had no allies in cabinet. Also, as I understand the remarks of the Prime Minister, he has little confidence in the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce because his policies will now have to be approved by the super minister.
In his preliminary remarks, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce praised the establishment of two new study groups within his department. One of the groups would be called the blue ribbon committee of business and labour, and its purpose would be to look at ways of improving exports. The other committee was called the committee of small business, which would look at ways of improving access by small businesses to programs of large capital expenditure around the country. If I understand the remarks of the Prime Minister
Economic Development
correctly, these two committees will be reporting to the new super minister, not to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
In all, four ministers have spoken and the House is no wiser as to what this new ministry is to do and just how Canadians will benefit from the additional expense to establish it. It was probably best summed up by John Gray in the Ottawa Journal yesterday when he quoted an unnamed official in his column. It reads:
"Obviously, if the cabinet committee system were working 100 per cent, there wouldn't be any need for this thing."
This official recognizes that the establishment of this super ministry is an admission on the part of the government of its complete and utter failure in trying to manage the business of the country during the ten years this Prime Minister has held office.
Hon. members will recall the great accolades the Prime Minister received for his approach to the question of management of government when he first took office. He was a man of the modern era, a systems man who appreciated technocrats. He was putting in place new, modern systems for the management of information flow through cabinet so that decisions could be made on a systematic and proper basis with everyone having access to all the relevant information.
Some months ago I had the privilege of participating in a seminar on the operation of government central agencies. One of our speakers was a senior civil servant who had been in the Privy Council office during this time of organization. This fellow explained to the seminar just how the cabinet functioned and how the Privy Council operates in conjunction with the cabinet. It was an incredible description. It was beautifully done, and he was obviously very proud of what he and the other technocrats had created there. With flow charts and transparencies on top of transparencies, he explained to the seminar how information flowed through cabinet, how decisions were made, which committee sees which piece of legislation, and the feedback system which was in place. With a lot of high sounding figures, he indicated the structures this Prime Minister had put in place to make the most efficient government in the world. It was absolutely incredible, beyond belief. How anyone could witness that and not see that the government was totally out of control astounds me.
There is no mystery about why the Privy Council staff has increased from 63 people to 469 people within ten years. They need that many people to keep track of all these systems and procedures that have been put in place by the Prime Minister with great pride in the past ten years. After ten years of the people of Canada having to pay the price for that incredibly stupid approach to management, there is now some recognition that it was an utter and complete failure and that something else needs to be done.
The new ministry that is proposed, with the vague guidelines that the Prime Minister has presented to this House, is not the answer. The incredibly complex Privy Council cabinet struc-


Economic Development
ture has not been undone; instead, another layer of bureaucracy has been put on it. That is not going to help one iota. It is a reminder to the people of Canada of the Prime Minister's blind spot, of his unwillingness to recognize that people's problems cannot be solved by moving chairs, by establishing new committees or by restructuring things. Examples of failure of that method are legion. There have been over 400 cabinet changes in the lifetime of this government, Mr. Speaker. Flow can anyone know where the washroom is, let alone know what their department is doing or how to exercise any control?
That kind of approach to government organization results only in total control falling into the hands of senior bureaucrats. A small handful of senior civil servants, the Privy Council office and a few of the key departments are, in effect, running the government. They answer only to the Prime Minister. The rest of the cabinet is absolutely irrelevant; their role is to show up at myriad meetings and say "Aye, sir." They make no other contribution to government and I suppose we should be grateful for that. As every objective journalist who has followed this government has indicated lately, this is clearly the weakest cabinet in Canadian government history.
There is one charitable explanation of why the Prime Minister has imposed this system. It could arise-I am not saying that it did-as a result of the recognition by the Prime Minister that his government is not obeying the policies decided by cabinet. Let us look at a few examples. The budget stated in four different places that it was the intention of the government to reduce involvement in the private sector. That statement was made in the throne speech in four different places. It was also made on national television on August 1 in the speech of the Prime Minister.
Less than two weeks after the throne speech the government nationalized Nordair and then it nationalized the oil company, Pacific Petroleums Ltd. These actions were directly contrary to the government's stated policy. I am willing to suggest that possibly the Prime Minister did not like doing that and that perhaps he has created this super minister to keep a watch on other irresponsible ministers who take decisions contrary to government policies.
There are a lot of other examples, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of State (Small Business) (Mr. Abbott) announced last spring the establishment of an office to reduce the burden of paperwork. It was to cut the red tape and reduce the paperwork imposed by government on industry. Less than two weeks after that announcement the Minister of Energy, Mines and resources (Mr. Gillespie) introduced a bill entitled "Petroleum Corporations Monitoring Act". The total intent of this bill was to impose an additional paperwork burden on this industry. It was directly contrary to the policy announced by the Minister of State (Small Business) which presumably had the approval of cabinet.
There were also the commitments in the throne speeches of 1973 and 1974 that the then minister of state for science and technology was to be given new muscle and would truly be in charge of the goverment's efforts in the areas of science and

technology. No such thing happened, Mr. Speaker; in fact, government actions were directly contrary.
I am prepared to concede that the Prime Minister has recognized that kind of conflict between commitment and performance and is trying to prevent it happening in the future. In 1972, the then minister of state for science and technology made a policy announcement to the effect that henceforth the amount of in-house spending would be reduced as a percentage of total government expenditure. In fact, the amount of in-house spending actually increased over the next four years. Again the actions of the goverment were directly contrary to their stated policy.
In 1972 Treasury Board announced that henceforth it would not build up large computer services in-house but would contract out to the private sector. Over the next five years, exactly the opposite happened. They built up large in-house computer services and the amount of contracting out decreased.
These are just a few examples of where government policy has been contradicted by government action and it is not a complete list, Mr. Speaker. I am prepared to concede that just possibly and finally after all these years the Prime Minister is starting to realize that the public will not allow the government to get away with saying one thing and doing another. The government is going to have to make sure its actions are consistent with what they have announced as policy. This super ministry has been told to try and keep the reins on those ministers who have not bothered to make sure their actions are consistent with their commitments.
If that is the purpose of this board, it is a sad commentary on the capabilities of cabinet, Mr. Speaker. It is a sad commentary on the honesty of the people involved that a super ministry has to be created to see that they do not deceive the Canadian public and that their actions are consistent with their statements. If that is what is necessary to control them, however, then that is what has to be done. I wish the minister well if that is the objective.
I have strong suspicions, however, that this charitable view is probably not quite accurate. It is more likely that the real reason for establishing this ministry is a final recognition or death bed repentance by the Prime Minister that, in terms of managing government and cabinet operations, the sophisticated approach to cabinet which he brought in with great fanfare ten years ago has been a dismal failure. That ten years of failure has imposed a burden on this country which it should not be asked to continue to bear.
There is only one real solution to the problem of that kind of incompetence, that lack of managerial ability by the Prime Minister, and that is to make a change. That is the only real answer. That is what this country needs. We need a new prime minister who understands management. We need a prime minister who has considered the problem and who recognizes that it is the people who count, not the structures. You cannot create a fancy system and put in whoever you want and get desirable results. You cannot take a broken down, defeated politician and make him chairman of a major international


airline and expect to get performance. We need a prime minister who recognizes that this cannot be done. We will have that kind of a prime minister after the election. We sincerely hope and pray that before the election we will not be inflicted with any more of those kinds of stupid decisions, changes and appointments.
It just boggles the mind to think what arrogance it must take to dismiss democracy totally and to say to yourself that being defeated, being turned down by Canadian citizens in a democratic, secret ballot election, is a qualification for a person to serve in high office again in this country. It boggles the mind to think of the arrogance it takes to make that kind of an appointment. The sooner a person with that kind of arrogance is sent back to counting and identifying tree leaves, plants or whatever else he desires, the better off this country will be.
My leader, in answering the Prime Minister's banal generalizations, listed a number of specific changes that should be introduced in terms of improving the operations of government. These are changes that we will introduce to try and bring some semblance of rationality to the government of this country. I urge the House and the new President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers to take a look at that. On behalf of all Canadians I beg him, at least in the few months of life left in this government, not to take any action that will further destroy what little there is left of the policies and the personnel left in our senior civil service who are trying, in spite of this incompetent government, to give the people the kind of service they deserve and are paying for.
My expectations of this ministry are very low. I cannot see how by shuffling around incompetent people this new shuffle will drag out some secret, hidden competence which heretofore has been invisible to us. I plead with the minister, at least until there is an election and his leader screws up the courage to ask the people of Canada whether they want to give him a mandate to proceed, not to do anything so precipitous that the next government, when it takes office after the election, will be faced with an impossible task or a task which will take two or three years to clean up the mess before it can get on with the job of giving this country the kind of leadership and government it deserves.
I will conclude my remarks at this point so that others who want to participate in this debate will have that opportunity.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers):: Mr. Speaker, we are approaching the end of about seven hours of discussion of a proposal which is before the House. Members have heard the comments of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the description of the ministry of the President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers. The proclamation, that was tabled in the House the other day, sets out the responsibilities of that board and the portfolio of the ministry itself. I am inclined to think my best contribution to the discussion would be to elaborate a little on the attitudes that I want to bring to this assignment.
Economic Development
The basic context and the working background, of the Board of Economic Development Ministers and the ministry is the logical progression of response to a long and deep series of consultations this government has had with provincial governments and with industry. When I talk about industry I am talking not only about those who manage and invest in the work place, but also those who work in it, the employees. Therefore, I am talking about business and labour.
The first ministers of this country, that is, the Prime Minister of Canada and the ten provincial premiers, concluded a conference the other day which was in fact the latest of many consultations which have, at their very core, the same basic concept that is behind this new ministry and board of economic development. This concept is a fundamental position that economic growth is, has to be, and will be the first priority of this government. We want to pursue that emphasis on support for the private sector and the marketplace as an essence for that determination.
Economic growth fairly distributed by region and among workers, investors and managers is the key priority and, indeed, the delivery system for that-if you can accept this kind of jargon-is business. Investment decisions in our society and mixed economy to start a business, expand a business, to bring a business up to date in its technology and to make the business more competitive, starts with a decision on somebody's part to put up some capital. That investment capital decision is based on an assumption and a confidence that there will be a return on that investment. That is where the beginning of economic growth really takes place in a mixed economy such as ours.
Of course, there are public sector requirements. There are absolutely legitimate areas where the public sector must play a part and must invest taxpayers' money as a catalyst to assist in a period of some difficulty or doubt, and indeed in ventures where the private sector simply will not, because of the lack of profit opportunity, make a decision to enter into it.
There are areas in this country where that kind of public sector activity will continue to be necessary. Canadians should accept that the prime movers in terms of creating the kinds of jobs that are lasting and, in the main, the kind of jobs which are satisfactory, are those in the private sector. The government's role, and my job as I see it, is to do everything I can on behalf of this government, with the co-operation not only of the members on the Board of Economic Development Ministers, but with the co-operation of members of the government party and hopefully on occasion through contributions from members opposite, to improve the climate for business and get on with providing the jobs and exports which this country needs. Indeed, it may not be a dramatic statement, but I am convinced that improving the climate can be accomplished by the combined actions of those in the public sector-and I mean by that the federal and provincial governments, and occasionally municipal governments as well.


Economic Development
It also has to do with something I said publicly which aroused the concern of people in the New Democratic Party. It has to do with government getting out of the way, reducing where it is wise and possible the amount and burden of government intervention in the economy. I am talking about reducing the weight over weight of government regulations where they overlap, duplicate or unnecessarily inhibit in relation to their objectives of the success, progress, advancement and expansion of industry, and therefore their capacity and ability to provide more jobs for our people.
I am interested in enhancing the effort to reduce the very weight of paper burden that governments in their rather inexorable way tend to create for people who have their own difficulties, without having to answer to all sorts of curious inquiry that we in the bureaucracy might think from time to time is productive but too often which we collect and pay no attention to in the end.
I am talking about a continuation of the program of responsible expenditure management over restraint within the bureaucracy, the government itself. I bring that bias to my new portfolio from the responsibilities I had in Treasury Board for a little over two years. As hon. members know, I was heavily involved in that in my previous portfolio.
There have been these and other responses by the federal government to the very wide series of economic consultations held with provincial governments. I refer not only to the federal-provincial conferences that are televised, but to the many meetings held at departmental levels, official levels and in ministerial discussions.
Consultations have been taking place over the past four or five years with business and with labour. In particular, I think of the consultations that took place over the last several months. The Prime Minister reminded the House in his comments of our response in the way of taxation policies, new labour and employment policies, major assistance to regions and to industries. In the consultations, particularly those with industry and labour which were organized and very well led by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) over the past several months, and the sectoral task forces and the tier two overview committee of business and labour, we helped produce considerable new confidence by the private sector.
Discussion on the creation of this new ministry and board began seriously about 12 months ago. It intensified over the past six months. When it became a possibility that I might be involved, and I will be candid with the House, I weighed this assignment very carefully. It seemed it was an idea whose time had come.
There are those opposite who criticize any change in structure, change in process, or attempt to improve the way we serve our fellow Canadians. They say it is an indication that everything we have done in the past was no good. That is ridiculous. The world constantly evolves. Anyone who is so smug and so satisfied with the status quo of structure or

process should leave and go away, because this is an ever-changing world.
When we announce something that we consider to be an improvement, we hear the negative side; that if it is a good idea, it should have been done a long time ago. I can subscribe to that. I have confidence in this new idea and approach to government process and structure. I am now convinced we should have done it some time ago. However, the world does evolve. To be negative about such a suggestion and simply say there is an indication that everything done in the past is no good is absolutely childish, to say the least.
There were many streams and many thrusts as to why this was a move that should be made. There was a key element that tipped our position toward making this change. I will be very blunt in saying that influenced my decision to accept what is going to be an interesting and admittedly difficult responsibility. It was the result and the feeling of the consultative process that took place over the summer between labour and business, in industry by industry, the so-called sectoral task force. I do not want to oversell or overstress this, but in my 13 years in public life I have never been so encouraged by the possibility that I see coming out of this process as it has developed over the past ten or 11 months.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Knight Andras: I was party to consultation on behalf of the cabinet along with the Prime Minister and other ministers for the past four or five years. We met from time to time bilaterally with selected businessmen across Canada and bilaterally with representatives of the Canadian Labour Congress. I found those consultations extremely useful. I hope they go on. However, they did have their limitations.
With the greatest respect to the NDP criticism of this resolution before us, I think this is where the danger lies. The CLC is very worthy and effective, but still an umbrella organization to labour. The businessmen, on the other hand, were not even knit together in a federation or structure. While the conversations and discussions were extremely constructive, they were ultimately about ideology.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, when we broke for lunch I was talking about the consultative process which has been taking place primarily between business, industry and labour over the past ten or 11 months supported-and I want to emphasize the


word "supported"-by government. In the time I have available to me in this debate I cannot cover all the ground we hope to achieve with this new ministry, but perhaps 1 can try to capture the essence of what we have in mind.
In the 23 task forces, industry by industry-the pulp and paper industry, the footwear, textile industries and so on-I think for the first time since I have been around the scene chief executive officers of companies met with the most senior line unions to discuss their mutual problems, with the view in mind that the industry would be healthier, profits would improve, that as a result wages would be better and, above all, that more jobs would be created. There was an umbrella committee called tier two which was made up of five selected people from labour and five selected people from business, with a neutral chairman supported by an academic.
In the earlier process, called tier one, there were some 305 business firms across the country, some 28 or 30 unions represented and a dozen universities. In my view they reached an amazing degree of consensus about a lot of practical things, in each case affecting their industries. The tier two committee examined all of these and was tied in its mandate to dealing with those recommendations and, finally, to producing an over-all report.
There are two things I wish to illustrate from these events. First, the encouragement we should all take from the fact that senior members of the trade union movement and senior executives from business are meeting and have reached a high degree of consensus about a number of important matters. They have had their disagreements and will continue to have them. But I have talked to people from both groups and I find there is a degree of trust and respect for each other that before I did not think existed. Out of this process, which was started by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, came 800 or 900 recommendations about what governments, both federal and provincial, should do.
That was the reason for establishing a co-ordinating ministry. The recommendations covered almost every program in every department and agency of the federal government as well as the very important and significant part played by the provincial governments. And a line ministry, even through interdepartmental committees of deputies and officials, was not geared to respond to this kind of constructive but all-inclusive and all-embracing series of recommendations.
Another significant factor was that some of these recommendations-more than a few-were recommendations that the federal government initiate programs or change policies which already exist. The people who were involved in the process worked diligently and are clever and responsible people. But we have to face the fact that they did not know that several of the programs they were recommending already existed. Therefore our delivery system, our information system as to what is available, obviously needs to be pulled together in a more cohesive and more readily available fashion. This is necessary in order to do the job of assisting the reconstruction and making the structural changes needed to give industry the help it needs by sector or by region.
Economic Development
I have used that example as an indication of my cautious enthusiasm for what we can do, as an illustration of why it is necessary to put in a co-ordinating mechanism, and also as an illustration of one of the most urgent tasks that my new board should undertake, which is the response to those sectoral task forces and tiers. After all, that covered mainly the manufacturing sectors, and today, by virtue of the apparent or potential success of that process, provided we respond substantively and responsibly, there are other groups in this country wishing to get in on the same process. To me that is a very healthy sign that there is something going on between labour, industry and business in this country supported by government which is worth nurturing.
I want to make a very definite point about this, not to overuse this issue except by way of illustration. I would not call it a partnership between labour and management because that would be overstating the case. There is a tenuous, potentially growing respect of one for the other which we must nurture, and both sides have indicated personally to me and to others that they want to see this process continue. There are great benefits to Canada, to labour and to business from the continuation of that kind of consultation, but it has to proceed in a balanced way. Labour cannot be party to this as an afterthought or in any sense of tokenism. They have to be respected for the constructive suggestions they will contribute to the process.
The businessmen I have been talking to who have been working with them on this fully understand. I cannot speak for them but my impression is that they will support it. For some others it may be a bogey, but we want it fully understood that this will be a balanced consultation and there will be no tokenism. In fact, the more that is recognized by labour, the more suggestions and constructive participation will be forthcoming from labour.
I am very conscious of the fact that there is another speaker who wishes to take part in this debate. One could talk for hours about what our intentions are.
Hon. members have before them the legalistic version of the mandate of the board in the order in council. I want to touch on two or three of these items to clarify some points that have already been made. The definition of an integrated federal approach is one of them. It seems to me that even just taking the consultative process I have described as a way of a significant illustration, the need for that is extremely apparent. I think the same thing applies to the question of developing better mechanisms by a political body which, if necessary, bangs heads together but, from a political point of view, reaches consensus on policies to be adjusted between departments.
Another responsibility I have is to meet with provincial governments to see whether duplication, overlaps and gaps can be tidied up between us.
The other item is the question of the Treasury Board. I do not think anybody in the House respects the importance and


Economic Development
the required integrity of the Treasury Board more than a past president of that board. It is an education in itself in that job because you see the broad requirements and the broad distribution of programs of a very large institution called the federal government. There is no question that I will respect the Treasury Board's over-all responsibility for the allocation of expenditures and resources. In that process we will look within the existing programs of economic development and support, through the various departments, not all of which are on the board, for the reallocation and reordering of resources to do new things before we go to the Treasury Board to seek new funds. But I will go to the Treasury Board to seek new funds, which might mean the reordering of other programs outside the area of economic development support if we as a board are convinced that this is an economic requirement for that time. I will be advising the Treasury Board within the very broad area of economic development and support.
There is an obvious attempt on the part of the opposition to drive wedges between me and my colleagues by attempting to say that the establishment of the new board will downgrade this or that department. That is patent political nonsense. It might be understandable as a measure of approach to this change which in most people's minds, if they were objective, could be seen at least as an opportunity for improved economic development management and economic growth in the country. I would have thought that rather than the absolute concentration on the negative aspects in this debate, apart from a little barb here and a little brickbat there, we could have heard some opposition members say: "We wish you luck, Mr. Minister, for whatever contribution you might make. We suggest to you that there is an area of improvement here or there." But we did not hear much of this.


An hon. Member:: You are going to get it.


Robert Knight Andras: I will close my remarks, Mr. Speaker, because, if what the hon. member says is true, it will be such a pleasant prospect to hear it from the opposition. I do not know how much time I have left, but I will try to conclude my remarks as soon as possible.
The Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) said in the first instance that they have looked at the structure of the government and the structure of the opposition parties and have decided to have six co-ordinating committees. Then he turned around and said that for us, the government, to have a co-ordinating committee is nonsense. If, God forbid, they ever sat on this side of the House, they would have six co-ordinating ministries.


Steve Eugene Paproski: He said that? That is what you will have to do when you are in the opposition.


Robert Knight Andras: That is interesting. Maybe some of the mystery is still left to be unfolded. I had the distinct impression they planned to have a co-ordinating system. Obviously I commend it, but they cannot have it both ways. They cannot recommend this sort of thing and then criticize it the way they have. His

comments were full of contradictions. I just wish I had an hour or more in which I could enjoy going over them.
One relatively minor, or perhaps not so minor, point has been the suggestion that the creation of this new mechanism will add expense to the taxpayer. We have clearly said that the secretariat will be small and that the expenditures of that secretariat will be contained within the fiscal ceilings we have already announced.
I also want to indicate that at the time we announced the proposed creation of the new ministry and secretariat, we announced the disbanding of the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs. The proof will be in the pudding.
I wish again I had more time. I want to leave some time for my friend the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees), but I should like to leave this thought behind. I would be very interested to hear-I hope it comes in the last moments of the debate-at least a note of optimism from the opposition, some hope, some encouragement, a note of good luck, the phrase "we hope it works", rather than the negative criticism we have heard in almost seven hours of debate.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak in the last few minutes of this debate I would like to thank the minister very much indeed for his generosity in cutting his remarks short so that I could have a few minutes at the end to express some views on this important matter. The other thing I would like to say is that from what he said about the policy put forward by my leader it is obvious he has misunderstood it. I will be glad to get together with him afterwards and explain to him what my leader was saying in this regard; I will take pleasure in doing that.
The only justification which exists for creating an economic super minister, as this bill does, is that the government is a government of misfits. The government's economic ministers are incapable of dealing effectively with the responsibilities entrusted to them because they have not had the training or experience necessary to cope with the complex economic problems with which their departments must deal.
What I have said applies to all of the ministers handling economic portfolios at this time. Because the time allotted to me in this debate does not permit me to deal with all of them, or even several of them, I intend to deal in some detail with one portfolio which is a clear example of what 1 am talking about. What I say applies to all of the economic portfolios in this government. The department I intend to deal with is the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
The Department of Agriculture must be headed by a minister who has had farming experience, because farmers alone are familiar with the problems facing the farming industry. The Departments of Justice and the solicitor General must be headed by lawyers, because they are the only ones familiar with the complexities of the law. Thus, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce must be headed by a minister who has had practical experience in the manufacturing, proc-


essing, and distribution fields. He alone understands the problem facing the business world he has been appointed to serve.
The present minister is a former rancher and a good one. He understands farm problems and, in my opinion, would make a pretty good minister of agriculture. He also gathered a good deal of practical knowledge about transportation both before he came to Ottawa and while he was transport critic in the opposition. In my opinion, he would make a far better minister of transport than "Airborne Otto", a former dean of law who knows absolutely nothing about the problems faced by transportation companies and by those who rely heavily on transportation to obtain their raw materials and to ship their finished products to market.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Get a new writer.


George Harris Hees: My writer is myself, as opposed to the ghost writers of members on the other side of the House. I write every word I utter, and I am proud of it.
But in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce the present minister is a complete misfit, because he knows next to nothing about the problems faced by those who produce manufactured products and who must compete in the export and domestic markets in price, quality, and design against the producers of the world.
It is for this reason that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has decided that he must be supervised by a super minister, and that the super minister must see to it that he introduces the following policies which should have been introduced long ago. The minister very kindly asked me to suggest the type of things he should do as the new super minister. I take great pleasure in doing just that right now.
The first of these policies is the introduction of productivity incentives which will persuade producers that they will be able to pay for the new plant, machinery, and production systems which they will have to buy to increase their productivity in a reasonably short space of time. This will make it as easy as possible for them to make the usually high expenditures which they must make to increase their productivity. Such incentives would include all capital expenditures involved in improving productivity to be written off in one year, and a plant to be rewarded in the form of a generous cash bonus at the end of the year to be paid in direct proportion to its increase in productivity during the year.
In order to encourage Canadian businessmen to make more sales trips abroad to better acquaint foreign buyers with what this country has to offer, incentives should be introduced to allow producers to write off 200 per cent of all expenses connected with making sales trips abroad, displaying their products at foreign trade fairs, and any other expenses incurred in sales promotion in the export market.
The government must introduce legislation which will require those who export our raw materials to process a far higher proportion of them in this country, and make available generous tax incentives to induce the building of the additional factories which will be needed. Such action will start to make
Economic Development
it possible to create the 800,000 additional jobs which the Canadian Manufacturers Association indicates will be made available if we can overcome our annual trade deficit of $12 billion a year in fully manufactured products.
He must introduce a policy to better acquaint the world market with what Canada has to offer. The principal buyers from the important markets of the world must be flown to Canada to see our manufactured products in giant trade shows in Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver, and our heavy machinery in the plants where it is made across the country.
He must introduce a policy to protect Canadian industries and Canadian workers from imports from low-wage countries which are taking away a steadily increasing share of the Canadian market. Import quotas must be introduced to retain for Canadian producers the same 80 per cent of the domestic market which is retained for their domestic producers by the United States and the European Common Market. I hope the super minister will see to it that the incompetent Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce now gets to work and introduces these policies. I am glad to see the super minister is already talking to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce because of my suggestions. I see the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is listening. I hope we will get some action at long last.
In conclusion, the Prime Minister should, instead of adding to the bureaucracy and red tape which already exists in profusion, promote people in his party who have had the practical experience necessary to handle the economic portfolios, instead of retaining in his government favourites who obviously cannot handle their departments. If he had done so, there would have been no need to create an economic czar to try to bring order out of the chaos which has been created by retaining obvious misfits in our economic departments.
Since unfortunately it has been found necessary, for the reasons I have so clearly outlined, to create this super minister, I can think of no better member of the present government to handle the job. One does not have to go far because there is not much to pick from. This minister is a good guy, and he has my very best wishes in the tough job which lies ahead.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being 2.30 o'clock p.m., and the seven hours allotted for the debate having expired, it is my duty to put every question necessary to dispose of the motion before the House. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Economic Development


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Trudeau), which was agreed to on the following division:


CANADA BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT
William Warren Allmand: that Bill S-5, to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
(Division No. 17)
	YEAS Messrs.	
Abbott	Dionne	LeBlancAllmand	(Northumberland-	(Westmorland-iAnderson	Miramichi)	LeeAndras	Dupras	Lefebvre(Port Arthur)	Duquet	LessardAppolloni (Mrs.) Baker	Ethier	LoiselleFleming	(Chambly)(Gander-T willingate)	Foster	LumleyB6chard	Fox	MacGuiganB6gin (Miss)	Francis	MarchandBlais	Gauthier	MclsaacBlaker	(Ottawa-Vanier)	McRaeBlouin	Gendron	MilneBoulanger	Gray	Nicholson (Miss)Buchanan	Guilbault	O'ConnellCaccia	Harquail	OstiguyCafik	Holt (Mrs.)	OuelletCampagnolo (Mrs.)	Hopkins	PearsallCampbell (Miss)	Horner	Penner(South Western Nova)	Isabelle	PhilbrookCampbell	Johnston	Pinard(LaSalle-femard-Cote	(Westmount)	PortelanceSaint-Paul)	Joyal	Prud'hommeCaron	Kaplan	RailtonChr6tien	Lachance	RainesClermont	Lamontagne	RobinsonComtois	Landers	RooneyCondon	Langlois	StolleryCorbin	Laniel	TrudelCorriveau	Lapointe	TurnerCullen	Lavoie	WatsonDawson	Leblanc	WhelanDe Bane	(Laurier)	YanakisDemers	NAYS Messrs.	Young-89.Andre	Hamilton	McCain(Calgary Centre)	(Qu'Appelle-Moose	McCrossanBaker	Mountain)	McGrath(Grenville-Carleton)	Hare	McKinleyBaldwin	Hees	McKinnonBalfour	Huntington	MitgesBeatty	Janelle	MuirBrisco	Jarvis	MunroBroadbent	Johnston	(Esquimalt-SaanClark	(Okanagan-Kootenay)	Nowlan(Rocky Mountain)	Knowles	NystromClarke	(Winnipeg	Paproski(Vancouver Quadra)	North Centre)	ParkerCorbett	Korchinski	Petersde Cotret	Lambert	Pigott (Mrs.)Dick	(Edmonton West)	RitchieElzinga	Laprise	RocheEpp	MacDonald	SchellenbergerFaour	(Egmont)	SchumacherFirth	MacDonald (Miss)	ShymkoFraser	(Kingston and the	SmithFriesen	Islands)	(Churchill)Gillies	Malone	Whiteway Yewchuk-55.
Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion carried.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


William Warren Allmand: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, Bill S-5 from the Senate was considered very briefly one afternoon last December 11 and then referred for study to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and not, as would be expected, to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. This is why I have not had the opportunity to speak on this bill amending an act on which I worked meticulously when we put forward and passed here in parliament the present Canada Business Corporations Act, in 1974.
We are presently considering the act to amend the Bank Act in the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, which takes all our time, and it is rather by chance that in committee we received representations from the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, relating precisely to an area of that legislation. After all, they did say at the time that perhaps we could improve the Bank Act by requiring them to release their public accounts-in short their public balance sheet-along the same pattern followed by Canadian corporations and businesses, which is in line with the principles and practices of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. I certainly think that is an acceptable suggestion, and I note, from the amendments that I have in front of me, that although this is a voluminous bill, amendments are actually not that numerous. Amendments to the text of the act are especially aimed at improving, correcting or explaining it. But I am in a rather difficult position because I do not practice law in the province of Quebec and all my experience with the Canada Business Corporations Act has been in English. According to representations made by the Quebec section of the Canadian Bar and by the Department of Justice, a new version should be prepared, in French, which would not merely be a translation from English to French, and that is what is being suggested this afternoon.
As the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand) indicated in his speech, there has been, since 1975, a rather dramatic increase in the number of federally registered corporations. I recall that when we were considering the


legislation as it existed, in 1974, and proposing some amendments, we were saying that the federal legislation or practice was almost obsolete and that most Canadian corporations would be incorporated under the various provincial statutes and then apply for transfer in order to come under national jurisdiction.
However that was not the case. A more up to date legislation is now used as a model, and I must add that I was rather surprised to note that the legislation has been used as a model by some provinces which have amended their own statutes on commercial operations in accordance with the federal model.
We hope that there will be more certainty in such matters, because if notaries and lawyers in provinces regulated by common law must advise their clients on a point of law, they have to proceed on the same basis. If in Quebec, on the basis of a similar French procedure, we now get the same results as an English solicitor in Ontario or western Canada basing himself on an English version, it will be quite effective. [English]
I should like to ask certain questions. On the one side, the attraction of the English language in practice is that there is a certain subtlety to it; it bends, it is malleable and subject to judicial interpretation. On the other hand, on the francophone side, there is always deemed to be a philosophical demand for absolute precision. In other words, the letter of the text must always govern, and if something is not found therein, it cannot exist. In the English version, that is not the case. A certain amount of growth and flexibility exists in it.
What philosophy prevailed in the drafting of the French version that has now been incorporated as the schedule to this act? I do not know. I have not had a chance to look at it. Perhaps the minister or his parliamentary secretary would tell us whether there is a dichotomy in the philosophies of the language used. I have never heard it said before that the French versions of our laws have been wrong and that they do not conform to a certain philosophy of language.
Is this to be an example now for many of our major acts as they apply in Canada? For instance, would we have to review the whole of the Criminal Code to see whether it should be rewritten in the French language rather than being a good and very effective translation of the English? I discern this to be a rather different philosophy of language. If that is so, I must say the Department of Justice and the Department of the Secretary of State and anybody involved in the translation of laws and their compilation will be extremely busy for many years to come. This is an observation I put forward at this time.
I have never seen this done before-outside of a relative few compared to the size of the act-that technical and explanatory amendments, amendments for greater precision have been put forward in the English text and yet the whole French text has been rewritten and brought in as an appendix. This is the reason for the bill being so thick.
Canada Business Corporations Act
There are at this time, however, a few other comments I would like to make about incorporations. One which is allowed under this particular act deals with personal corporations. Since the total French version is brought in I can speak about it, even though somebody might question the English version if there was no particular amendment to this section. We have seen where many services, insurance companies, architects, athletes, entertainment artists and a number of other persons who have incorporated themselves, under the laws of Canada or of the laws of a province, into personal corporations so that they could take advantage of certain tax provisions under the Income Tax Act and thereby be relieved of the heavy taxation levied for general corporations.
In my province the professions were able to convince the government of Alberta that personal incorporation was a good thing. Alberta has a forward looking government which is given to developing private initiative. It has allowed those in the professions to incorporate themselves and associate their business practices with these personal corporations. This gave them a better tax deal. About that there is no doubt. I have always advocated the use of the income tax system on an incentive basis. If this form of organizing one's affairs through a personal corporation gives a better return to the individual, who thus was encouraged to get out and scramble more and to increase his or her economic activities, then so much the better, and Canada gains.
There is always a philosophy which has been abroad in certain political parties, and certainly it is so in the present administration: anyone who makes a dollar must be socked, in other words, hit the hardest. In fact the state claims as an inalienable right its proclaimed share of an individual's economic activity as soon as that activity is concluded, and whether or not the money has been collected does not matter. It belongs to the almighty state. That is a philosophy to which I cannot ascribe, and I repudiate it. It seems to me, in order to regain a sense of the work ethic, of taking our rightful place in the economic world and putting Canada back among the leaders where it was 20 years ago, out of the depths of the rather inferior position into which we have slipped, that we have to give individuals, either in their private capacity or incorporated, the best incentives possible so that they can carry out their economic activities and proposals.
I am not going to go into all of the details. There is no particular point in going into the detail of the changes. I certainly support a bill of this kind. While it was not open to me to get the detail of the study done by the committee in the Senate, I am sure they did very good work, as did the legal affairs committee of this House, but certainly the pattern would be set by the first committee hearings in the other place. I commend this sort of examination by the other House and I say the same about Bill S-4 which precedes it. This bill is one that is equally voluminous but of the same nature.
I trust that we will readily come to a decision on this bill on third reading. I have not seen a speech at second reading from either side of the House which was in opposition to it. There-


Canada Business Corporations Act fore I would approve of the work done by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to read the committee report and I did not have the opportunity of attending the committee meetings.
I had anticipated there would be some explanation or discussion by some members on third reading regarding the point which was raised just now by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), in relation to the translation. I mentioned at the time that it would have been easier if the translation had also carried the original text beside it so it could be easily checked by those members of the House who have that exceptional fluency in both languages. Members would have been able to check the detail that the one language demands, and relate it to the purpose and intention that obviously the other language gives to the legislation.
There have not been any amendments made by the government or by the opposition at the report stage. This may be an oversight on my part, but when the bill was before the committee, consideration should have been given to doing something on behalf of the poor, abused, frequently agitated public. The willingness of members of parliament to do something about the type of protection that could be given under this bill to protect the public from the corporations and the machinations in which they engage, should have been indicated.
It was pointed out by a number of members, including myself, that we were far behind the United States. We were playing with legislation that obviously had been handed to the government by civil servants. I indicated that the Minister of State (Multiculturalism) (Mr. Cafik) had, in his more enlightened days, been interested in this subject. He had indicated that corporations often did things that were diametrically opposed to the wishes of the average citizen. Much of what they did was detrimental to the health and property of individuals in this country.
This bill is now back for third reading. None of this has been done. All we have done is correct some of the abuses that were taking place in the bureaucracy. All that members of parliament are doing is fixing up the legislation so that it can be handled more easily by the civil servants.
A large number of members in this House practise law. Occasionally there is lobbying by their colleagues in practice. They find the law a little difficult to handle in one aspect or another.
Maybe we cannot protect the shareholders, directors and others against the limited penalties in this legislation. However, surely somebody on that committee should have been interested in putting some restrictions on the corporations. The corporations are given the right to establish under Canadian law. We are setting forth the protection the shareholders will receive. We are setting the regulatory powers of directors and how they will relate to the shareholders. However, we are not

doing anything to protect the public against the corporations which often work against them.
The example was given of aluminum wire. Because we do not have the guts or the intelligence to put into this bill restrictions on corporations, they do things that are both immoral and unsafe. There are still companies that manufacture aluminum wire for domestic purposes. If the price is right, that wire will be installed in houses and may ultimately result in the death of some people.
The same is true of Ford Motor Company. It was allowed to incorporate. We protect the shareholders and do many other things. However, there is no protection for the consumer who buys from his dealer who, in good faith, is selling automobiles which the company and the board of directors know are dangerous and may result in fatalities.
Ford Motor Company has calculated how many fatalities there will be per thousand or per million cars. In addition, they have calculated what the lawsuits will cost, what the company will have to pay for each accident. They have determined that is easier than redesigning the automobile. That would not be allowed under any other act, but it is allowed in the Corporations Act. That is not because the committee did not know about it. It was because the committee just did not care. They listened to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand) who says there is protection under another act. However, it should be under that act which gives the corporations the power to set up. That is where protection for the consumer should be. It is the only way the power could then be taken away from the corporations.
The companies are allowed to incorporate. They are established under this legislation. If they do not live up to the requirements in the legislation, their power should be taken away. It is all right to talk about the consumers protection act and other devices we have tried to establish, but they have not worked. The wire companies can still manufacture aluminum wire which could conceivably kill people.
We have not told Ford Motor Company that it must have the type of engineering that will ensure the automobiles they manufacture are safe. If a limiting clause had been put in this legislation, Ford would not be able to sell the Bobcat or Pinto in Canada at the present time. The board of directors, the shareholders and anyone who reads the newspapers know about this because it has been publicized in the United States. With that limited clause, Ford could not sell those cars or could lose its certification under the Corporations Act of Canada.
This is a very limited requirement, but we are not including it. Why all the fuss? Why are we going through this exercise, making the French version coincide with the English version, at least by implication? We have not put the two together. What we have done is write two different acts. The one before us will operate in French. The English act has already been passed.
This act is not being opened up that much by this bill. In effect, only the French version is before us, except for the


initial clauses which are in both languages. We are not going to make any change. A lot of people are having trouble with Firestone tires. Others have the problem of gas tanks rupturing when they are in accidents.
Many people have bought a Chrysler, as I did, which has a starter that will not turn over the motor. It has been admitted in the United States that those starters were built for a much lighter car. I understand they may have to be changed three or four times during the lifetime of the car. That applies not only to my car but to every Chrysler. I have been told by a Tilden fleet owner that he keeps two standard and two heavy duty starters on his counter all the time, and that he is continually changing them. That is an engineering fault.
There are faults in the ignition system of some of the automobiles on the road; there are faults in the cooling systems; there are faults in some of the transmissions, and these have been obvious for more than one year's production run yet they are still being allowed.
The public asks for the kind of protection which is possible under this bill, but the members are not asking for it, and the department does not want responsibility for supervising the relationship between the warranties and the knowledge which shareholders and directors may have about weaknesses in the products they are selling. They do not wish to become involved because this is, to them, a totally different field. Yet someone has to occupy that field.
It is surprising to me that when this bill went to committee the members there examined it, listened to seven or eight members discussing its deficiencies, and then refused to write in any provisions for the benefit of John Q. Public. When a change of government comes about after the next election 1 predict there will be a minority government and, if there is, all members had better be prepared-


An hon. Member:: Dreamer!


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member says "dreamer", but the Gallup poll indicates that whether it is the high level or the low level, the voting will almost inevitably result in a minority government.
The public knows that minority government is good government. The people know that the only time they got changes beneficial to them-


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would be glad if you would ask the hon. member to explain how his prediction of the outcome of the next election fits in with the topic under discussion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What are we discussing?


William Arnold Peters: We are discussing Bill S-5. The hon. member can look it up on the order paper if he likes-it is under Senate bills. If he looks at it he will not be better off than he is now.
Canada Business Corporations Act
The reason I am interested in minority government is this: we have made no changes in this bill which has to do with corporations. It is an act under which corporations are established, but all the government has been interested in doing is seeing that the French version coincides to some extent with the English version which we passed a couple of years ago. I am saying there are more important things to be considered and one of them is the right of individual citizens to demand that, since Canada provides facilities for these large corporations, the public should in turn be assured that where the shareholders or directors realize there is a problem with the product they are selling they would be guilty of an offence if they do not acquaint the public with it and make every effort to eliminate the hazard. Anything less is unacceptable.
The reason I mentioned minority government is this: the bill went to committee and a number of suggestions were made from all quarters. However, when it came back to this chamber no amendments were reported. Indeed, no amendments were moved in the committee, meaning that it was rubber-stamped there; no consideration was given to it at all. I am convinced this is the case, having heard the previous speaker, the hon. member for Edmonton West, who is a stickler for detail. I have heard him give a number of lectures to the House on details of this nature, and if these matters had been discussed in the committee he would have been among those taking part and some amendments would have been made in it, because I am sure it is not perfect. Consideration might even have been given to making some changes affecting the responsibility of companies which have been incorporated so as to ensure that the public would be protected as well as doing what this act does, namely, protecting the shareholders and the board of directors.
I will not say anything further along these lines. I am sure that if a minority government were in power changes would probably have been made to the benefit of the public. We might have saved someone being killed in a little Ford car, a Bobcat or a Pinto; we might have prevented someone being stranded if he were driving a Chrysler whose starter did not work; we might have prevented someone being killed because of the blow-out of a Firestone tire through a defect the company knew about for a year before it became general knowledge. We might have prevented someone being burned to death in a house which had been wired with aluminum wiring.
I am suggesting this is lousy legislation. It is a lousy way to send it to a committee where the committee does not have the courage or the guts to make any decisions other than those the civil servants have made. I think this is lousy government and the sooner we get into a minority situation the better government will be.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to reply briefly to the questions raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). The question of the public interest about which the hon. member for Timiskaming has spoken so eloquently was, in fact, raised and discussed


Canada Business Corporations Act extensively in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. It was unfortunate that their other duties prevented those hon. members from being present because I think that had they been there most of the questions they have raised would have been answered. The point is that this bill which registers corporations is not intended to do everything. A corporation, like an individual, is subject to the law of the land, and the assumption is that a corporation will abide by laws of general application, for instance, in such matters as safety standards.
This bill enlarges the power of the dissenting shareholder who is thereby strengthened when expressing a concern about the public interest. The safeguards for fiduciary responsibility are also increased.
I should like to comment also on the questions which have been raised with regard to the French language translation. We must remember that although this bill has been on the order paper for only a couple of weeks now, it was also on the order paper in the spring, and it is the second time the Senate has examined it, held extensive hearings, and heard witnesses. So it is a bill which has had rather careful examination and broad exposure to the public because the draft bill was in the public domain-it was circulated to lawyers and accountants over a fair period.
The question of the French translation arose when the bill was before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs about three years ago. At that time some of the French-speaking members of the committee found fault with the quality of the French in that the translation seemed to them to be clumsy or less clear than it might be, particularly if it were going to be used by members of the Quebec Bar. So the commitment was given to the committee at the time that a new French version would be introduced. Again there was extensive consultation with members of the Quebec Bar, and our colleague, the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau), who was the parliamentary secretary to the minister of justice three years ago when the bill in its first shape was before the House, worked with the legal draftsmen in the Department of Justice, with officials of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and with members of the Quebec Bar in order to get a version which was clear, accurate, and more acceptable to the practitioners in Quebec.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


THE LATE MRS. GOLDA MEIR PARLIAMENTARY TRIBUTE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I understand there is unanimous consent to allow one representative of each party to rise and express briefly his condolences on the death of Mrs. Golda Meir, former Prime Minister of Israel.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Agreed.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Agreed.


Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Golda Meir whose death occurred in Israel before the Sabbath last week. I had the honour to be part of the eight-member delegation of parliamentarians who represented our country in Israel at the funeral. The delegation was headed by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson) and by Senator Jean Marchand.
Golda Meir was, in her lifetime, the most remarkable woman in the world. She settled early in the land which was to be reborn as Israel. Because of her great strength as a human being, her personal values and standards will be a part of that state forever. Her commitment was to a free society, to democracy, to social justice, and to the search for peace.
In her great life she was a victim of discrimination, a refugee, a pioneer settler, a wife and mother, a woman who will always be a particular example to women, a union organizer, a politician, an ambassador to the Soviet Union, a minister and a prime minister who, suffering from the disease that was to ultimately take her life, led her country in war. Regrettably she did not live to see her country know the blessings of peace, but there will be a peace in Israel, a just peace, and when that peace arrives it will be a tribute to her memory.


Rob Parker: Mr. Speaker, along with my colleague, the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) and, as he indicated, a number of other members in the House and one representative of the other place, I was honoured to attend the funeral of Mrs. Meir in Israel earlier this week. It seemed to me that in attending her funeral, in paying tribute to her, in taking notice of her death today in the House, we mark much more than the passing of a former head of government of the nation of Israel.
Born in the Ukraine, raised in the United States, she was a pioneer in the Zionist movement and in the Israeli organization of the kibbutzim, the collective farm villages that were and are central to the development of the modern state of Israel. She was a pioneer as a woman who combined a career of more than 50 dedicated years in public life with a deep and abiding love for her family. She was a person of caring and compassion, of heart and love for her fellow man, whose turn as leader of her nation was bloodied by a terrible war.


For those of us who did not personally know this remarkable woman, we have still with us an introduction to her in the form of her autobiography entitled "My Life". In it she stated that despite all her accomplishments as a citizen, high government official, minister of the state and first minister, all that she did during her life in Israel and outside it, her proudest achievement was the three years she spent as a young woman at Merhavia, a kibbutz.
When a Jew dies, the friends and family sit Shiva, a seven-day period of mourning. For the death of Golda Meir, a nation will mourn, and for much longer than seven days.
On behalf of my colleagues and my constituents, I would like to say to the nation of Israel and its people around the world, in the words of the Hebrew prayer, "Hashem yinohem et hem", or, may the Lord console you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues of the New Democratic Party I am pleased to associate myself with the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) and the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Parker) in these few words of tribute to a great woman, the late Golda Meir. We are pleased that our party was also represented at the funeral service in Jerusalem by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), and we extend our appreciation to the government for arranging the trip to Israel for a delegation representing both Houses of Parliament.
I am happy to join the two preceding speakers in the words of tribute they have spoken to the life and contribution of Golda Meir.
I should like to add-I suppose it is because I am a grandparent myself that I noticed it-that I believe the last time that Golda Meir was seen on television around the world was during the visit of President Sadat to Israel when she, as a grandmother, gave him a present for a grandchild which had just been born to the President of Egypt. I mention that because it tells us that Golda Meir was not only the strong public international figure we knew her to be, but that she was a warm human being, and we join in this tribute to her memory today.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, it is with eagerness that I join my colleagues today in paying tribute to that great lady, Mrs. Golda Meir. As a member of the delegation Canada sent to Jerusalem to attend her funeral, I had the opportunity of seeing that the Hebrew people have lost one of their greatest historical figures whom they had sur-named "Mother Courage". She lived through exile and persecution which doubtless shaped her character and determination. She also helped to build her country as ambassador, member of the Knesset, minister and prime minister. Her public life and her political life did not prevent her, however, from fulfilling her role as a wife, mother and woman. Ben Gurion said of her "She is the only man in my government" which shows how great a role she played in the life of her
Non-Profit Corporations
country: she was a model of courage for the State of Israel and the whole wide world. Her memory will doubtless remain engraved in the minds of men for a long time to come.


CANADA NON-PROFIT CORPORATIONS ACT MEASURE RESPECTING CHARITABLE CORPORATIONS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, December 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Allmand that Bill S-4, respecting Canadian non-profit coporations, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I take a great sense of pride in being able to talk about Bill S-4 because it deals with the regulations affecting volunteer organizations in Canada. At the outset, I should like to place before the House the importance of volunteer organizations, and then follow through with some of the concerns regarding this specific piece of legislation.
No great nation has reached a state of greatness without the framework of volunteer endeavours. Volunteerism is the true concept of pioneering. I come from the prairies which witnessed, approximately two generations ago, settlers who came to start what turned into the agricultural communities of Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatchewan. They became the lumbering people of British Columbia and the miners of the north. They were part of the gold rush in the northern areas of the western provinces and the territories. Those people believed in the volunteer concept. Those men and women headed west with nothing but Red River carts and the will to achieve. They were without staples, the normal supply of food. They lacked the shelter by which they would normally be comforted. We recognize that it was the intuitive will of the human being to grasp for something greater which provided the strength of the nation.
Innate within human beings is the natural instinct for curiosity and ambition. As a farm boy I observed that natural instinct in all young, higher mammals. One can see it in young children, puppies and kittens. Anything which limits natural curiosity comes about by an imposed set of regulations and rules. In all societies, obviously rules are necessary. When I take a look at Bill S-4 I am concerned that it contains more than 200 clauses relating to the manner in which volunteers will work effectively within Canadian society.
If Bill S-4 became law in its present form, we would be faced with a situation where those who wanted of their own initiative and ambition to contribute to the fabric of Canadian welfare would require secretarial, legal and accounting staffs, as well as all paraphernalia surrounding economic and political structures. This is a very, very serious retrograde step, a step which could plunge Canada into attitudes which are prevalent


Non-Profit Corporations
in some of the eastern European countries. The over-regulation and over-power of government is such that the people of those nations feel, unless their governments make them perform some specific duty by law, that they have no incentive of their own volition.
Personally I feel I can speak with some authority on the concept of volunteerism. I spent ten years of my life working with the 4-H Club movement in the province of Alberta. In some of the larger towns in that province the majority of students attending high school were from urban centres, yet the presidents of student unions were usually farm boys. This was not by accident. It was because they came out of the 4-H movement which existed on the backbone of parenting and volunteers. People in the ranching districts of the southern section of the province drove an average of more than 60 miles per member in order for their children to attend the club. They believed that their children were taught something about conducting meetings, public speaking, debating, accounting, looking after animals, and most particularly, responsibility.
I should like to share a recent experience with the House. I am sure three government members share my concern. On a recent trip to the Middle East we visited with the Canadian contingent on the Golan Heights and in Cyprus. Our soldiers there do not know or desire the eight-hour day. Their work is the limit of the task. Whenever their soldiering duties are done for the day, interestingly enough, the vast majority of them are involved in self-help projects.
We noted with great interest that the other battalions serving in the Middle East were of the very strong opinion that Canadian soldiers were favoured with Canadian money over and above other contingents. Also, there was a belief that the United Nations favoured them with a greater degree of money. The truth of the matter was that Canadian soldiers were favoured no more in an economic sense than others. They were favoured because they were blessed with the ingenuity and initiative to go ahead with self-help projects such as developing their own recreation areas, planting grass and trees, and building around themselves something which was very beautiful and a home away from home. In striking contrast, some of the countries just across the rolls of wire fence provided army tents which were sheltered from the wind only by bombed out buildings requiring repair for approximately five or six years.
Everything comes down to the concept of Maslow's hierarchy of human needs: once a human being has met the basic needs of food, clothing and shelter, feels the sense of having been loved and the capacity to be loving, he strives for a sense of self-esteem, willingness, and a desire to achieve.
I find the objectives of Bill S-4 commendable, but when I look at the particular wording of the bill, I become very, very concerned. This bill contains approximately 242 clauses. It is a weighty manuscript to place before any association which operates within the concept of volunteerism. These associations operate because they want to help the people around them, yet now they will be burdened by the heavy weight of government. They will require the assistance of legal people to sift through and comprehend this piece of legislation. The nation will not

achieve greatness by the government regulating associations with the ambition to attain achievements which otherwise would not be forthcoming.
I should like to refer to some of the disincentives which exist in eastern European countries. The fact of the matter is that initiative has been destroyed in those areas. Their populations have lost the zest for life which is a natural human instinct. Effectively the bill kills the volunteer sector of our society. Free society needs and must have a free notion of volunteers. Volunteer organizations should not be required to have red-tape computers to thresh through all the material placed before them by government. Not only are the 242 clauses dangerous because they are numerous, they are dangerous because some clauses raise considerable concern for all Canadians, particularly people who believe in free democracy.
In the 700 years the parliamentary system has been in existence, and since the concept of that Mother of Parliaments at the time of King John, we have removed the notion that we are subjects, and now appreciate the fact that we are citizens. Freedom of speech ought not to be taken away in any light form.
I should like to put forward some examples of the things in this bill which create rather grave concerns. I am sure there are many organizations across the country which have great concerns about some of the aspects we find in Bill S-4. The bill contains an indication that churches will lose their voluntary status if what they do is interpreted in any way as being political. Without making reference to any particular faith, one simply has to ask what a church is if it is not an institution to attend to moral questions in a society? Without giving any of my own feelings in this regard at this time, I would simply ask why a church should not be able to express an opinion on capital punishement, on any issue involving law and order, on abortion, on mercy killing, on women's rights or on child abuse, without an assumption being made that in so doing the church is becoming political in its intent and should lose its voluntary status?
Any bill before the House which can be interpreted as having that intent would lend itself to the destruction of the very backbone and fabric of democracy. What we must attempt always to preserve is not just the concept that we regulate the society in which we live but, more important, the incentive of people, wherever they may be within a country, to create a society that reaches greatness because of the ideas, energies, and imagination of the people.
Churches are not institutions to be slighted by legislation that would take away some of their basic rights to speak out on any subject in respect of which, in a self-proclaimed manner, they feel it is their duty to speak. It is an affront to the concept of freedom of speech to have such a clause within a legislative measure.
What of many of the other volunteer organizations in the country and their feelings in this regard? Let me refer to fish and game associations as an example. Are they not to have the


right to become involved somehow in politics when there is a bill before the House such as Bill C-83, the initial gun control bill, or Bill C-51, the subsequent gun control bill passed by this House? A fish and game association is basically a voluntary organization. It is very dangerous to suggest that if ever such an organization were to speak out on something that is political it would somehow lose its voluntary status.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member opposite has spoken with great feeling of the importance of the voluntary sector, and of that sector being free to do its advocacy job. I think perhaps what the hon. member is responding to is the national revenue definition of a political institution in the tax statutes, which has nothing to do with this bill. The hon. member mentioned a clause in the bill which would limit this kind of activity by a church, but I do not see that in the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. What the hon. member suggests is more in the way of a correction than a point of order.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish at this time to enter into a debate with the hon. member opposite. I could document that particular statement, and I could go even further by saying there are civil servants who have made the statement that, even if the clause were removed, the intent of the government is to enact the measure with that interpretation. That becomes almost more frightening in that it means without a law there is this intention to place a particular slant or emphasis on this activity.
Why should any group be denied the right to speak? What has this government become? Does it no longer intend that we have citizens in this country? Are we to be reduced again to subjects? Somehow organizations which are really fundamental parts of the nation are being denied the right to speak out on any issue. I must ask myself what organization there is in Canada that speaks out on any issue which does not in some way touch politics? Politics is an all-encompassing concept. It is everything within a society. Therefore any organization that speaks out on any issue could in fact be, or have the potential of being, interpreted as being involved in politics.
This bill needs a great deal of additional scrutiny. The fact that it has 242 clauses supports the suggestion that what we see before us is a government with a great capacity for taking the simple and making it complicated. I would suggest that volunteers, no matter what period in our history they live, have always been and always will be the pioneers of our society.
I have more comments I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, but, noting the time, may I call it four o'clock?
Commonwealth Caribbean


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. 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.
Item No. 2, the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Stand by unanimous consent.
Item No. 6, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Stand, by unanimous consent.
Item No. 7, the hon. member for Renfrew North-Nipissing East (Mr. Hopkins). Shall the item stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Item No. 9, the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott). Shall the item stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Item No. 10, the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard). Shall the item stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Item No. 11, the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk). Shall the item stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


COMMONWEALTH CARIBBEAN
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons should be established to consider the advisability of taking an initiative in promoting closer commercial and cultural relations between the Dominion of Canada and the communities of the Commonwealth Caribbean and that inter alia such committee should consider (a) subsidization of sea-borne transport between this country and the Commonwealth area (A) Canadian governmental assistance in the upgrading of the seaports of Atlantic Canada (c) such tariff changes as might facilitate the exchange of commodities between the two areas id) encouragement of the exchange of students of the two areas (e) recommending assistance towards meetings of political business and
2196


Commonwealth Caribbean
educatioal leaders of the two regions with a view to stimulating a north-south exchange of goods, people, services and technology in a mutually advantageous way.
He said: Mr. Speaker, to me this is not a new subject. As some of the veterans like the venerable hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) will know, it is not a new interest of mine.
Whatever else is uncertain in this political career, and I have found it more uncertain than ever in the last few months, this will certainly be my last notice of motion speech on anything.
I have found that while it is quite a treat and, indeed, sometimes an extremely difficult thing to get into the House of Commons, 1 am among a small group of people who are finding it quite difficult to get out at the date of our choosing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Some whom we would like to get out will not go.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I noticed the former minister of justice across the way this morning, and I had a fellow feeling with him on the situation in which we find ourselves.
1 am happy that my last motion under private members' hour should deal with a subject very close to my heart and on which I made a speech in my youth when I sat over there and spoke on a motion by the hon. gentleman who now sits in the other place, Senator Mcllraith.
In recent months i have had to live with a personal embarrassment in that I have said goodbye to so many people and have been bade goodbye by so many people and find now that 1 am apologizing for being around.


Steve Eugene Paproski: It is nice to have you back.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Thank you, sir.
I do give the promise that 1 will eventually go, and that is a firm commitment, with all the uncertainties of the present political situation. I can say that this parliament will eventually end, and that we will not need a Cromwell to say, "In the name of God, go". I think we will eventually be dissolved.
When I first spoke on this subject matter, Mr. Speaker, I sat on your right. I was a government supporter. I am about to leave the House of Commons when it seems that in a few months my party may again be given the opportunity of sitting on the Speaker's right. I have never felt like a biblical figure before, and I suppose I never deserved to feel like a biblical figure, but it reminds me of Moses, who could see but not enter the promised land. But 1 do see it, I see it clearly, and I am delighted with what I see.
My interest in this subject matter has not diminished over the years, as I have become more familiar with the people of the Commonwealth Caribbean and with the area itself. As I have been, I remain a committed believer in Canadian involvement in the outside world, even though at this time we have enormous and painful internal economic problems.

I have heard, as one is bound to hear, the mutterings, rumblings and grumbles of those who say charity begins at home. I have heard the sour notes of those who point to our own problems, and sometimes they indicate that one has pointed them out from time to time from public platforms. I have never been terribly upset by these people, because I have always believed that those who say that charity begins at home are not usually too charitable at home themselves, so they are not my advisers. I am convinced that despite our stresses and strains, our national problems and our crises, we gain perspective if we recall that we are a part of the greater world. That, I think, is the credo of a good international citizen and a leading member at its best of the international community, as Canada is.
It is never very profitable to spend much time in navel gazing, hand wringing, or problem gathering. This is not a useful exercise. As Mr. Pearson said more than once, in the face of our internal difficulties we gain strength rather than diminish ourselves by giving of ourselves to the outside world. Of course there are questions we should ask about our programs for the outside world. We should ask about the nature of these programs, the types of programs and, in general, our capacity to aid efficiently the developing world. I am happy that the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, through an important and valuable subcommittee, has looked into this matter in a most searching way and intends to do so again.
To abandon the world because of our internal anxieties and weaknesses would, I believe, be a supreme lack of faith. There are questions which we should ask. One which I have often asked in the last 15 years is whether or not we have our priorities right. I will not use the terrible conglomeration of letters called "priorization". That word is even worse than the word disincentives or the word patriation. What we should ask is what we should do, how we should do it, and where. Even at its best, even at times of great economic strength, the Dominion of Canada could not mount, support, and sustain a meaningful program of assistance for 70 or 80 countries all across the world, so we must develop priorities.
1 have never had any hesitation in where I would place my priorities. Commensurate with our capacity, based upon our contacts, our knowledge, and our friendship, I would say that there is no place abroad where we could do more effective work, develop more meaningful contacts and be more significantly helpful than with the nations of the Commonwealth Caribbean. It seems to me that their needs are commensurate with our capacity, or perhaps it would be more graceful to express it the other way, our capacity is more commensurate with their needs. With this area we can see clear prospects of aiding them, even the weakest among them toward a state of economic viability and prosperity.
I think that it is only right and proper that in all such programs of aid we ask, "will our contribution make a difference, will it show up in developing those goals for the people to whom we are extending our aid?" This is a manageable thing to do. Indeed, it is possible that it might make the difference


between a strong and viable policy or a healthy economy and a depressed one.
We know that in our external contacts we have often made grave errors because we really did not understand the people with whom we were dealing. We did not know their customs. So much valuable time was lost and so much strength was wasted. However, we do know the people of the Commonwealth Caribbean, and they know us. We have had a long history of friendly ties with them. Even before we had the capacity to deal with foreign affairs, which I would place at around 1917 under the great Sir Robert Borden's leadership, we were developing contacts with the external world, and these were with the Commonwealth Caribbean. Interesting and valuable trade negotiations were carried out in Ottawa on more than one occasion.
To the historic ties we add the geographic propinquity. They are in fact in this global world, as it is still called, our neighbour. Perhaps more impressive than anything else-and here I show my bias as a parliamentarian-these communities have parliamentary institutions which are strong and which are in some cases carried out under very great difficulty, the highest goals for which parliamentary institutions are established.
I do not get too carried away by the views of those who say we should apply some litmus test to every country in the world and, if we do not approve of them morally, 100 per cent, we should have nothing to do with them. Because we draw our inheritance in a parliamentary way from the United Kingdom as do they, I believe this establishes a bond of extreme importance and immense value. They are sister members of the Commonwealth; they are neighbours, and it is heartening to see that in some of the islands in the Commonwealth Caribbean where the institutions are very small, they are able to carry on well and to develop a party system and all the institutions known to the British pattern.
They know us and they still like us. That is important, Mr. Speaker. Canadians from the private sector and the public sector have been going there for many years. I should like to see this bond strengthened along the lines I have suggested.
Over the years I have moved away from advising aid and toward developing a mutuality of interest and stimulating trade between our countries. That is why I asked for better ports in the east, better facilities for shipping and exchange programs for students, professionals, social workers, politicians and so on. 1 believe this is the positive way for us to help them and, in the long run, for us to help each other. 1 think there are great possibilities in this, and I should like to see the matter studied very carefully.
1 suggest this proposal should be examined by a joint committee. I propose a joint committee because the Senate of Canada has established an excellent reputation for the quality of investigation of its committees. In my judgment its methods are better than ours, its procedures much more effective, and its accomplishments generally far more substantial. In 1970 a
Commonwealth Caribbean
Senate committee made an exhaustive and interesting study of the Commonwealth Caribbean which added much to our deliberations.
I could say much more, Mr. Speaker, but I have spoken on this subject before. Knowing how hon. members hang on my every word in every session, I shall not repeat what 1 have said. Exactly one year ago on the Friday before the Christmas recess-I seem to be fortunate enough to get the opportunity to speak on a Friday-I remember speaking to hon. members in a parliamentary way. I again invite members who enjoy the fruit of the cane and the Caribbean high commissioners in the gallery to join me, after the debate is over and approval has been given by the House, in a little Christmas cheer a la Caribbean rum.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Marke Raines (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, may I say to the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) that I wish him all the best when he retires from this House after his career as a parliamentarian.
I was somewhat suprised that when he resumed his seat he was applauded by members of his party. While I respect the hon. member, I am completely and diametrically opposed to his ideas. During the four and one-half years 1 have been a member of this House, 1 have wanted other people from British Columbia to travel to his beautiful part of the world, to Ontario, and to Quebec. I want massive student exchanges. I must tell the hon. member what we have in British Columbia and why I cannot in any way support his plea for exchanges with the Caribbean.
The economy class air fare from Vancouver to Ottawa and return costs $430. It costs more to Montreal, and far more to go to the hon. member's province. For four and one-half years I have been urging this government, the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) and everyone else, to provide lower air fares to lure British Columbians to other parts of Canada. So far we have seen just a small drop in fares and the introduction of some charter fares. Many British Columbians still have not seen Prince Edward Island, they have not seen Ontario or Quebec. For half the fare they can travel to Hawaii, San Francisco and Seattle, and people in eastern Canada can take their holidays in the Bahamas and the Caribbean. They can have student and teacher exchanges between Canada and France or, as the hon. member wishes, between Canada and the Caribbean, which are supported by the federal government, while we do not have enough funds to support this country. At this time in our history I want people from the west to see the east, and vice versa.
I propose that every Canadian from British Columbia to Prince Edward Island should have the right to travel to other parts of the country once a year for a fare of $100 or $150, to put an arbitrary figure on it. People from British Columbia could visit Quebec city, Montreal, Prince Edward Island, and people from those areas could visit British Columbia. In this way all would have a better understanding of the country. As a
H0067-67'/2


Commonwealth Caribbean
member of parliament I have had the opportunity of going to Quebec.
The hon. member spoke of a list of priorities. I should like to refer to some that have not done too well. In the Ottawa Journal of May 27, 1978, under the headline "Student Exchange Program Goes Broke", there appeared the following report:
The federal government's showcase student exchange program, Open House Canada, has run out of money with 6,000 on the waiting list.
Co-ordinator Brian Gilhuly said the program's budget of $6 Vi million is enough to take care of 23,500 students. Another 6,000 students have completed the necessary steps and are waiting to be accepted.
Open House Canada offered free airfare to anyone between the ages of 14 and 22 who was willing to be matched up with a host somewhere else in Canada.
Apparently we do not have enough money for these student exchanges. I see the hon. member for Hillsborough is having a chat with a member from British Columbia who is a colleague of mine. I am sure my colleague on that side of the House will add his persuasions to mine.
I do not want to oppose the program for the Caribbean, Mr. Speaker, but it is low on my list of priorities. It is a good idea and I, too, want exchanges with the Caribbean, but also with France, England, and other places. The hon. member, of course, has his list of priorities, but during the 20 minutes that he spoke he never once mentioned any other part of Canada. Has he forgotten British Columbia, Alberta, and other parts of the country? They are all rather beautiful, but it costs the average Canadian too much to visit them.
I should like to hear the hon. member's views on lower airfares. I am sure there are people in his riding who would like to see Quebec and Ontario.
I should like to tell the House of the value of the student exchanges, Mr. Speaker. In British Columbia there is some prejudice against Toronto and Ontario, perhaps even more than in the maritimes. Certainly there is some prejudice against Quebec and against another language. From time to time to it has been my pleasure-as 1 know it has been for other members-to welcome students from all parts of the country who are participating in programs such as Open House Canada. They have all thought how wonderful it was to have the opportunity to participate.
Three years ago I attended Laval University in Quebec-at my own expense-in order to learn French. I met with students from the United States, British Columbia, and even from Prince Edward Island. All saw Quebec city and the province firsthand as they were learning the language, and they had no prejudices or misconceptions. If both students and adults had the opportunity to travel across the country and still had a dislike of one part of the country, at least it would be well founded on things they had experienced, and not based on misconceptions. Some of those misconceptions are due to the failure of the media, and of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in particular to live up to its mandate of explaining one part of the country to other parts.

I have called for cuts in the CBC. I have called for these cuts in committee, and I have done so in opposition to this government at times. I have called for cuts in administration, but 1 have told the CBC president, A1 Johnson, in committee that I would even vote for an increase because I think communication is that important. If the CBC would live up to its mandate, nothing could be more important.
Of equal importance to communications is the right of Canadians at this time in our history to travel and see the country and to meet their friends and fellow Canadians from Quebec, Ontario, and Prince Edward Island. And now, in December, 1978, to have a colleague of mine say-and I call him a colleague whether he is on this side of the House or the other side of the House, our ideas could be the same-let us have exchanges with the Caribbean, valuable although that may be, I find it almost to the point of being discourteous that in a 20-minute speech he did not mention once that we have a need in British Columbia and Alberta that is not being fulfilled.
The airfare from Ottawa to Vancouver and return costs $430, and that is not an easy amount to find. So I suppose people from here go to Florida and the Caribbean. I do not blame them. People who live in British Columbia, because of the excessive cost of air fare and the lack of communication- we do not see that on the national network-people in British Columbia are more familiar with Seattle, Hawaii and California than they are with the maritime provinces. This national disgrace must come to an end sooner or later. That is why for four and a half years I have asked that the constituents who live in the Hillsborough riding, as well as all the people who come from Ontario, Quebec, or any part of eastern Canada, be given an opportunity to come to British Columbia, Alberta or any part of the west. By the same token I want the people of the west to have the opportunity to come east.
While I am not telling anyone what language they can or cannot speak, there are growing numbers of people in British Columbia who want the opportunity to learn another language. I submit that we should all join together to give them the opportunity to learn a second language. I do not care what the media or what orators in this House say, and at times I do not care what this government says, because I have been to Quebec, I have spoken to the people there and I have found a desire to learn English. I find their hearts are good.
No matter what premiers or officials of any province nay say, I have talked to the people, as have all hon. members-the hon. member from Prince Edward Island has talked to people more than I in his long and distinguished career-and 1 think the people of Canada are good, and that growing segment who want an opportunity to become Canadians must be given that opportunity. For that reason perhaps the hon. member for Hillsborough will join me in my plea that we have a chance to see all sections of this country and then, after that, perhaps I will be prepared to listen somewhat more carefully to an exchange between the maritimes and the Caribbean.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that you allowed the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Raines) to discuss his motion when he was supposed to be discussing the motion put by the hon. member for Elillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie).


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


William Arnold Peters: It is possible for those of us who like hockey to discuss baseball also and these topics do not have to be discussed at the same time. In fact there is some advantage in not mixing them up. I think that when members are discussing hockey they can discuss it, and likewise when they are discussing football, they can discuss it. But they do not necessarily mix, and the rules are not the same.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member is insinuating that the Chair should have intervened when the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Raines) was speaking. I thought he was addressing himself to the motion before the House. I understood he was stating his views, that contrary to having an exchange of services and techonology, he referred to an exchange of students within Canada, and I thought he was quite in order.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, thank you for your explanation. I did not understand that from the comments.
We have had the opportunity of associating with the hon. member for Hillsborough in a number of debates-


Marke Raines: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to know if the hon. member understands either one of the official languages. I thought I had made myself quite clear, and if at any time in this House one cannot speak on the need-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, the member just proved my point.
As I was saying, since 1957 we have had an opportunity of associating on many occasions with the hon. member for Hillsborough and we will be very sorry to see him go. I am sure we will be no more sorry than the people in this country who have felt that we have an obligation in Canada to help some of the other Commonwealth countries. I agree with him that there are no better Commonwealth countries to help than those that will help us. It has never been suggested by the hon. member for Hillsborough that we were going to do this out of the goodness of our hearts. There was a great deal to gain from a relationship where we might need sugar, oranges, or the rum that comes from that part of the world, which is something dear to some people's hearts, as well as cigars. In turn they are interested in our potatoes, wheat, flour, and a number of other commodities that we have in excess in Canada.
It seems to me that is good neighbourliness for Canadians to participate with other Commonwealth countries in that kind of an exchange. Over the years the hon. member for Hillsbor-
Commonwealth Caribbean
ough and those who have participated in the Caribbean Canadian committee, loose though that term maybe, have always stressed the fact that this was not entirely one-sided, there were advantages on both sides.
It is interesting to walk down the streets of Toronto because one will find people there from the Commonwealth Caribbean area rubbing shoulders with other Canadians in a harmonious relationship. It is not odd either to walk down the streets in many Caribbean countries because one will find a branch of the Bank of Nova Scotia rubbing shoulders with a branch of the Bank of Montreal or a branch of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. One can also see ships carrying Canadian goods delivering to Caribbean ports, and in return, bringing back to Canada some of the produce found in that part of the world.
The hon. member has stressed the advantages of developing ports. It is very difficult to deliver or receive goods unless sufficient facilities in the ports are made available. It means that if we are to import tropical fruits and other commodities of a perishable nature from those countries, they will have to be protected with refrigeration and container ships and the other necessities of modern merchandising. Those ports have to be established at both ends of the line. It is only in Canada that we have a ship docking off the shore of Frobisher Bay and then we find we cannot make the delivery via small boats because the water is frozen. Most countries are not that stupid, and it is only in Canada that we believe we do not have to have facilities. We have the ships but we cannot dock them wherever we please. I think the hon. member for Hillsborough is perfectly correct in saying that proper facilities at both ends of a trade route are necessary. We may help in the construction and with technology in the Caribbean, and they may help us in other ways.
There is one thing Canadians miss that our friend in British Columbia cannot give us; during our six months of winter we need warm sunlight. This is something the Caribbean has. The Caribbean has beautiful beaches, warm sunlight, and warm water in abundance. We have commodities the Caribbean countries need. In a limited way we are an industrial nation. A trade can be made very readily which is advantageous to both parties.
It might be wise and more to our advantage than it is to theirs if one were to pick up an Air Canada brochure and find that the prices are quoted in Canadian funds instead of American funds. The other Caribbean Commonwealth countries do not use American money either. It is only a form of exchange for the tourist industry that is operated for both Canadians and Americans. There would be very little difficulty translating Canadian money into money used in Barbados, Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago and other places in the Caribbean. However, that is not the way it is done. It is converted into American money. This kind of arrangement could be made very easy so that our money is directly related to the Commonwealth Caribbean countries which we visit.


Commonwealth Caribbean
I do not want to spend very much time on this subject.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: That is not to satisfy my colleagues on the other side of the House. It is simply because they may not be able to stay on this subject long enough to kill the motion. That is the reason I will not take too long.
We have been very impressed with the efforts that have been made to relate in a fair and reasonable way the relationship between the Caribbean and Canadian people. There is a warm friendship on both sides. It has been ably demonstrated that, given a reasonable response, very unusual results may flow from that which will be to both our advantage and theirs.
We are all familiar with the lack of support on the government benches with regard to the request from the Turks and Caicos Islands. They petitioned Canadian members of parliament to make some kind of arrangement whereby we would provide them with the industrial development necessary to develop those islands into a resort area. In return, the islands could be used for the benefit of Canadian citizens.
The government pooh-poohed that, saying that we would be accused throughout the world of starting up a colonial empire. When my colleague from Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Salts-man) suggested those islands attach themselves to Nova Scotia, there was a great hullaballoo. It was suggested by the Turks and Caicos that they become a protectorate of Canada or a territory. The then secretary of state for external affairs, Mr. Sharp, almost had a fit. He asked what our neighbours would say when we went to the United Nations if we had a protectorate or territory in the Caribbean. He said we would become a colonial power.
That was not the way the people on the islands viewed it. They have a relatively small population, 5,000 or 6,000. Even if you include all the relatives on the islands, there still would not be more than twice that number. These people could easily be covered under our old age pension and other social security programs that we have. In return, they would have allowed Canadians to build hotels and establish seaports. The Canadian dollar would have been used as the exchange. Canada could have sent many processed foods and goods to these islands. They, in turn, could have sent us what they grow on their tropical islands, as well as letting us take advantage of their sun and sand. This was pooh-poohed because the officials in the Department of External Affairs felt it would indicate that we were not as pure in terms of being colonially oriented as we pretend to be.
There would be an advantage on both sides. All arrangements would have to be done in harmony. There could be an equal exchange and we could quite easily arrive at a trade balance that would be nil. By reciprocal buying and selling, there would be equal advantage to both sides.
This is not true at the present time in the Caribbean. In Jamaica, for example, we own the banks as well as the bauxite

industry. They look at Canadians in a different light than if we were equal partners in a Commonwealth arrangement.
The hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) has sown a seed that I hope will grow to maturity. I see great advantage for both the Commonwealth Caribbean and for Canada. I can visualize ships travelling between those two areas in the same way that airplanes do, carrying people and produce, with a mutual advantage to both parties. There should not be any roadblocks whether people want to travel to Hawaii or California. That is not the question. This is an opportunity to expand our trade in a mutually acceptable way and to do it with equality. We would be equal trading partners working to our mutual advantage under a harmonious arrangement between Canada and the Caribbean Commonwealth.


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, there was joy in the House of Commons today when we were privileged to hear again the distinguished voice of our colleague, the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie). There was sadness in the House also when we were reminded of the pending departure of that gentleman who has done so much through his years in the House of Commons to raise the sights of Canadians to our international opportunities and responsibilities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Roche: I say to the hon. member for Hillsborough that this House will be the poorer for his departure. If he leaves behind the many aspects of a legacy through the years, the final chapter being his motion this afternoon, this House has been well served indeed.
Unfortunately, I have to tell the hon. member for Hillsborough that he has not been totally successful in raising the viewpoint of Canadians with regard to international opportunities and obligations. There was a perfect demonstration a moment after that gentleman sat down of a Canadian who has not yet had his vision widened commensurate with the responsibilities he holds as a member of parliament.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Raines), in responding to this motion, made a very interesting speech indeed. I say to him with great respect, and indeed friendship, that his speech this afternoon in which he lamented the high cost of domestic travel and deplored the drying up of funds for the domestic student exchange program, was not a speech against the motion of my friend from Hillsborough. It was an indictment of his own government for failing to do the things necessary in our own domestic economy, giving him a sense of frustration and exacerbation respecting travel in our own country. Just because a point he made indicated the government is not to say that the validity of the point made by my hon. friend from Hillsborough is any less.
I have to remind the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour that only three or four hours ago in this very chamber the


Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), answering a question from one of my hon. friends, gave a run-down of his forthcoming trip to Jamaica where he would be meeting with several first ministers from around the world on the general subject of the north-south alignment. The hon. member for Bumaby-Seymour forgets that his own party has been a leader and, indeed, has supported the two reports of the subcommittee on international development to which my hon. friend from Hillsborough referred. The members of the Liberal party joined members from both sides in making unanimous the two reports which were prepared in 1976 and 1977 as a reflection of the concern of the many members in all parties with regard to the north-south problem.
Those reports from the subcommittee on international development were a reflection of the work which the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence is capable of doing were it given sufficient opportunity. These reports stand out as exceptions to the general lassitude which characterizes the work of the committees generally, and specifically of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. If there is any improvement to be made in helping Canadians understand a wider sense of opportunity and obligation-the hon. member for Hillsborough pinpoints a specific area, the Caribbean-it is through the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. I say to the House with great confidence it will not be long before events are set in motion whereby a sense of leadership will be given to the Canadian people to explain and support the measures which have been recommended by members of parliament from both sides who took part in those hearings.
I will just refer briefly to a couple of sections in that report from the subcommittee on international development. My hon. friend from Hillsborough, referring to the north-south problem in the Caribbean, has by implication talked about the debt problem of the developing countries today. The report which the subcommittee offered to the House and to the government started by quoting the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, Mr. Ramphal, himself a distinguished son of the Caribbean. He said:
The inequities in the international system are of tremendous significance. They have given rise to essentially two worlds and the disparities between them are growing. One is the world of the rich, the other the world of the poor, united by its heritage of common suffering. A poverty curtain divides the world materially and philosophically. One world is literate, the other largely illiterate; one industrial and urban, the other predominantly agrarian and rural; one consumption oriented the other striving for survival-
The second report from the subcommittee had to do with intermediate funding. One of the recommendations, indeed, the principal finding and recommendation, reads as follows:
The flow of "aid", or real financial resources, to developing countries remains as important and urgent as ever and is still the most concrete yardstick of the commitment of wealthier countries to assist the developing world. It is important to stress the continuing role of aid since the debate on the "new international economic order" has often focused primarily on "non-aid" aspects of co-operation.
When the hon. member for Hillsborough comes into the House on a Friday afternoon and reminds us of our opportunities to fulfil the commitments our country has made over the
Commonwealth Caribbean
years, for his pains he gets a speech saying we have to improve the situation in domestic air fares and domestic student exchange rates. In other words, we have to make great improvements in the internal economy of our country before we address ourselves to the larger matters of the world. Mr. Speaker, every day of the week members of House are engaged in that very exercise of analysing and trying to improve domestic economy.
Is the hon. member trying to tell us that we cannot give any priority to the subjects my hon. friend mentioned? He forgets that a large percentage of the land of the world and 99.5 per cent of the people of the world are not in Canada. What shocks me is how little time is spent in the House of Commons devoted to occasions on which members can discuss more realistic policies of Canadian involvement in a changing world. If there is any characteristic which marks my hon. friend's motion this afternoon it is the characteristic of being sensible. It is eminently sensible.
I will read the operative section of the motion. He recommends "assistance towards meetings of political, business and educational leaders of the two regions with a view to stimulating a north-south exchange of goods, people, services and technology in a mutually advantageous way." He understands the reality of the human condition today that is threatened by this widening chasm between the 30 per cent of the world who live in the advantaged countries and the 70 per cent who live in the developing countries devoid of any means by which to make themselves more self-reliant. That is what the issue is today. Canada benefits from a more vigorous participation in improving north-south relations.
I shall certainly not be the one to talk out this motion. I want it to go to a committee. I want the subject matter to be cummunicated to the people of Canada and, indeed, to the government side here this afternoon, because it represents the voice of wisdom and outlines the practical steps to be taken in order to move the north-south debate ahead.
There was an implication in the Prime Minister's answer this afternoon in reply to a question, and I invite the hon. member to go back and look at Hansard for the Prime Minister said, and he was right, a log-jam had interrupted the north-south dialogue between the developed and the developing nations. Everybody who follows the international scene today is all too conscious of that log-jam.
Many things must be done of a sensible nature, as my hon. friend suggests, which can begin to move us forward in practical steps to close that gap in such a way that the people of the developed countries, as well as the developing countries, are the beneficiaries. I invite the hon. member to give that aspect some thought, even from the vantage point of beautiful British Columbia. British Columbia as well as Prince Edward Island will be among the chief beneficiaries of this move. You see, it is in the interests of both the rich and the poor to boost productivity all over the world.


Commonwealth Caribbean
The heart of the dilemma today is low productivity in both the developed and developing worlds. That is at the heart of economic instability. Once we see that, it becomes easier to take a systematic approach, the kind of approach for which my friend is arguing. It is in the interests of both the rich and the poor, the developed and the developing, to increase the flow of capital into the developing world, and to improve the transfer of technology. That is what he is talking about in his motion today.


Marke Raines: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but would he permit a question now?


Douglas Roche: I will close my remarks in just a moment and my friend can raise his question then.
In supporting this motion I should like to point out that moving toward a more dynamic global economy is in the mutual interest of both the north and the south, and by raising the purchasing power among the greatly expanding populations of the south, releasing new resources and developing new markets for both the poor and the rich, higher levels of trade can be created within and between all countries. That is the essence of the motion. In effect, the developing countries of the south can become one of the engines of resumed progress in the industrial world. We need those expanding markets.
The subject which we are debating this afternoon is far beyond the subject of just aid. Aid is an inconsequential aspect of the totality of the north-south relations. It is, as my friend points out, an important aspect still, but those who follow the north-south dialogue recognize that if we are going to make a realistic response to the challenges in the world today, then we have to move beyond aid and create a new development strategy.
As the third development decade opens in 1980, one of the things that Canada can do, since we do not really have a strategy but only a lot of ad hoc programs, is to develop a new strategy on industrial development co-operation with the nations in the north-south complex.
Mr. Maurice J. Williams, who is chairman of the development assistance committee of OECD, one of the world's foremost authorities on this general subject, notes the following:
Broad international support is more likely to be mobilized for evolutionary changes which remove unjust constraints in the international economic order, facilitate an ongoing process of structural change and encourage a concerted effort to help weak and vulnerable people.
That is what my friend is asking for this afternoon in his motion.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Douglas Roche: Canada is well suited to lead and not be a grudging participant in the search for new order in the world. 1 think that the members of the House should have the opportunity to debate these questions. The Standing Committee on
External Affairs and National Defence should be much more active. If we did that, we would have a more realistic foreign policy that is understood and supported by the people of Canada, especially including the people from British Columbia.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marke Raines: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the hon. member who comes from Alberta, and I included Alberta in my remarks. What he said was most interesting in dealing with the need for trade with the Caribbean, but I would like to ask him if he would support me in acceding that the priorities of cultural and student exchanges should be the first priority of British Columbia and Alberta in the west? Would he support me in a motion with regard to that priority?


Douglas Roche: The hon. member is perfectly free to submit his own motion and to try to generate support for ideas that are closest to his heart. This afternoon we are privileged to have a motion from the hon. member for Hillsborough, and that is the motion I am supporting this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Charles Lapointe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, opposition members made it extremely easy for me today, but probably because they wanted to prevent me from paying tribute to a colleague and friend of mine, the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Mac-quarrie). I want to tell him my hope that this pre-election period goes on for many more months so 1 can continue to have the pleasure of working with him and benefit from everything I learn in his interventions which are always full of wisdom and humour. I appreciate his constant concern for the better-being not only of Canadians but, as he has shown in this motion today, of all inhabitants of the globe, and I believe we have in our colleague from Hillsborough one of those new beings or one of those people we call citizens of the world.
Ever since he first sat in the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has always endeavoured to bring an international dimension to the debates of this House. Unfortunately, I think we do not have enough opportunities to discuss those subjects. I was struck by one of the things he said in his intervention today. He referred to that false proverb which says that "Charity begins at home." I believe as he does that it is imperative, even in a period of economic difficulty, that we use our minds, our hearts and our financial or technical means to help our brothers in other countries of the world going through worse economic difficulties than we are.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being five o'clock, this House stands 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, December 18, 1978