1978-01-30

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. Because of the importance of United States federal aviation authorities granting certification to the Challenger jet-our multimillion-dollar, government-owned and sponsored program-if it is to succeed in world markets, and in view of recent reports which I have heard in Washington and elsewhere of the resentment and concern of American aviation authorities and companies arising from the rather bizarre test project insisted upon by the Canadian Ministry of Transport, Walter McLeish, proprietor, which took place on September 28, 1977, in California involving a U.S. commercial aircraft, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski):
That the Minister of Transport clarify on motions at an early date the basis of the present status of existing reciprocal agreements regarding certification of Canadian and American commercial aircraft.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM-STATEMENT OF DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Last night, on "The Nation's Business" television broadcast, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) seriously misled the Canadian public concerning the business of this House and the important role of the opposition in its deliberations. Therefore, I move, seconded
by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House inform the government House leader-
This is something which he ought to have known in the first place, namely:
-that the bill establishing an employment tax incentive program was passed by this House on Thursday, and that members are waiting impatiently to deal with substantive economic matters rather than the list of insignificant housekeeping legislation the government has placed before us in an effort to hide their completely inadequate legislative program.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion under Standing Order 43. Whereas the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Faulkner) instructed his commissioner of the Yukon Territory, Art Pearson, not to assent to a bill to amend the inquiries ordinance of the Yukon territory which had passed all three stages in the legislative assembly of the Yukon and which would have enabled inquiries into the conduct of his commissioner, and whereas subsequent to the minister's action such an inquiry was established for the purpose of, inter alia, examining the conduct of his commissioner in instructing that a certain charge then pending in the Supreme Court of the Yukon territory be withdrawn, concerning which charge the judge of the Supreme Court had already stated that there appeared to be a prima facie case to be met, and whereas the said inquiry was established by the minister's commissioner who altered the terms of reference requested by the elected members of the assembly after first discussing such alterations with Commissioner Stratton appointed by Commissioner Pearson to head the inquiry, and the minister's commissioner having contemptuously-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Erik Nielsen: -described the inquiry now under way in the Yukon as "a crock of bullshit"-

January 30, 1978


Mr. Speaker:: Order. With all due respect, I think the hon. member is extending himself well into argument in the preamble. He should put the motion.


Erik Nielsen: I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That the government require the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to give immediate consideration to calling for the resignation of his said commissioner of the Yukon Territory.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EFFECT ON NORTHERN WILDLIFE OF RADIOACTIVE DEBRIS FROM SOVIET SATELLITE-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the grave concern expressed by the Inuit of Baker Lake and the Keewatin region that radioactive debris from the Soviet satellite may represent a serious hazard to caribou herds and other wildlife and may contaminate the lakes and rivers, all of which are essential to the survival of the Inuit, I move, seconded by my hon. friend from Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That the Minister of National Defence or the responsible minister outline on motions today what is being done to determine the extent of the contamination and what contingency plans are in place to clean up the debris and minimize the risks.


Mr. Speaker:: The provisions of Standing Order 43 require unanimous consent before such a motion can be put. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TOURISM
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 with reference to the ailing condition of Canada's tourist industry which is expected to register a $2 billion deficit for 1977. As the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) has failed to introduce his promised measures to encourage more Canadians to spend their holidays at home, and as the minister has failed to act in connection with the 13 problem areas in Canada identified by the tourism industry at the one-day session with the federal government's office of tourism, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):

That this House direct the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to appear before the appropriate standing committee to explain his lack of action in dealing with the 13 recommendations presented by the tourism industry, and to state what policies he proposes to overcome the record $2 billion deficit.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House before it can be presented. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with an important and urgent matter.
As the Quebec Social Affairs Minister, Dr. Denis Lazure, announced on November 23 last the opening of some twenty clinics across the province of Quebec where abortions will be performed, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York South (Mrs. Appolloni):
That the government immediately stop giving financial assistance to those clinics.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PENSIONS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it is too much to hope that some Liberal will not say no, but I shall try anyway-and I shall keep trying until we win. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent):
That this House calls on the government, now that we are nearing the midway point in the United Nations Decade for Women, to expedite the introduction of legislation to establish equality for women, and that as a step toward this goal special emphasis be placed on pension equality, including full rights for women under the Canada Pension Plan, equal pension rights for all women between the ages of 60 and 65, regardless of marital status, increasing the pensions paid to widows under various government plans to at least 75 per cent, and the continuing payment of pensions granted to widows regardless of any subsequent change in marital status.
January 30, 1978


Mr. Speaker:: The provisions of Standing Order 43 require unanimous consent before I can put the motion. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question was intended for the Solicitor General. I very much regret that he is not here, but possibly the Minister of Justice has informed himself of the situation resulting from the serious accusations, or implications, of the article which appeared in the Globe and Mail this morning. I ask the Minister of Justice whether on September 15, when the Solicitor General executed the affidavit referring to the 26 documents which he refused to turn over to the Keable inquiry, one or more of those documents referred to operation "Ham," which refers to the code name for the break-in to secure statistical data on the Parti Quebecois.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Since reading that article I have not had an opportunity of discussing it with the Solicitor General, nor of reviewing all the documents. I think the House can appreciate that. I have had the opportunity to meet with and be briefed by senior officials of the Department of the Solicitor General and the security service, all of whom assure me that the Solicitor General did not know about Operation "Ham" before late October, 1977, and that his statement to the House on October 31 was correct.


William Herbert Jarvis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the difficult position in which the Minister of Justice finds himself. I ask him if those officers indicated whether the words "operation Ham" were referred to in any of the 26 documents that formed the subject matter of the Solicitor General's affidavit of September 15.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Not specifically, Mr. Speaker, simply because I have not had an opportunity to review it that closely. They gave me the assurance-which I gave to the House-that there must be some mix-up in the story with regard to the documentation involved.


William Herbert Jarvis: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the inability of the Minister of Justice to obtain exact details on this matter, would he undertake to determine whether any of the 26 documents which formed the subject
Oral Questions
matter of the September 15 affidavit referred to operation "Ham" specifically?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


WITHHOLDING OF INFORMATION BY SOLICITOR GENERAL-APPLICATION OF FEDERAL COURT ACT
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I should like to ask the Minister of Justice if he can provide the House and the country with some information which justifies the Solicitor General withholding information under the provisions of section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act. Can the learned gentleman say, for example, whether this is done on the basis of information known personally to the Solicitor General, based on reading the relevant files and material, based on reasonable information in the sense of permanent jurisprudence, or does he just sign these declarations under section 41(2) on the basis of some vague representations to do so?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Speaker. Any minister signing a section 41 declaration does so after careful examination of the documents in front of him, and by exercising his judgment as to whether such action fits within the criteria of section 41.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Based on the undoubted concern that the Minister of Justice has for this very important matter which has occupied the attention of the country for some time, can he assure the House and the country that in fact that is what the Solicitor General has done in every case where he has withheld information, in view of the statement made by Mr. Julius Koteles, a well known Winnipeg lawyer, in connection with the Laycraft commission, that as far as he is concerned he sees no relevance at all in the material withheld under section 41(2) in this regard?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I think the Solicitor General has already outlined to the House the manner and method by which he signed such declaration. It is done, obviously, on the advice of officials as to the nature of the material and its sensitivity, requiring a section 41 declaration.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: A final supplementary question. I gather the minister is saying that he cannot give the House the assurance that the Solicitor General personally read and acquainted himself with the material.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I can give the House the assurance that the Solicitor General pays very close attention to documents submitted to him under section 41. I am quite sure of that.
2342

January 30, 1978
Oral Questions


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
[Stage Direction]
BREAK-IN AT PARTI QUfiBfiCOIS OFFICES-GOVERNMENT REFUSAL TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTS TO INQUIRY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I regret the absence of the Solicitor General. I checked with his office this morning and was told that he would be in for question period. He has obviously changed his mind. I will put my question to the Prime Minister. Since RCMP staff-sergeant Francois d'Entremont, of the Montreal detachment, asked RCMP headquarters, by telex on December 23, 1972, for confirmation that the break-in which took place on January 9, 1973, to obtain information about the Parti Quebecois was legal, as the staff sergeant sent the request by telex to Ottawa to find out, before involving himself, whether he was about to do something legal or illegal, and since the reply he received authorized him to take what has turned out to be, transparently, an illegal act, could the Prime Minister tell the House why the government has refused the Keable inquiry access to the reply sent from Ottawa?
Surely, the reply was other than a straightforward "yes" or "no" and contained important information that I, for one, cannot believe would have any security implications.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General has been detained on a personal matter, and I regret his absence from the House at this time. I will gladly take notice of that question and make sure he provides an answer.


ALLEGED ILLEGAL ACTIONS OF FORCE-MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Prime Minister and concerns the notion of ministerial responsibility. In view of the fact that Superintendent Nowlan of the RCMP, the man who conducted the internal inquiry established last June into wrongdoings of the RCMP, was personally and deeply implicated in the illegal break-in to obtain information about the Parti Quebecois in January, 1973, and since the Solicitor General indicated he was not told until late last fall about this activity, is it not the Prime Minister's view of ministerial responsibility that such a person should be sacked from his position if, in fact, he did not provide the Solicitor General with the information he requested last June?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this appears to me to be the type of argument the hon. member should make sure is familiar to the McDonald commission. I think this is a pleading of responsibility. We set up the McDonald royal commission precisely to look into the matter of responsibility of the RCMP and the government, and we are anxiously awaiting its report.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Prime Minister, as the head of the government, what I think is an

important question on the principle of ministerial responsibility. Is it not his view that if a senior official of the Solicitor General's Department, or of any other department, is requested to conduct an inquiry and systematically misleads the minister in terms of the report he makes, that person should be dismissed or other, equally severe punitive action should be taken? Is that not at least what ministerial responsibility is all about?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is an allegation contained in that question that an RCMP officer systematically misled his minister.


John Edward Broadbent: I said, if that is the case.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The member is asking a hypothetical question, Mr. Speaker. I am telling him that the responsibility of the McDonald commission is to look into the facts to see if there was any systematic misleading.


John Edward Broadbent: Three years from now? The minister will be back tomorrow.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is our opinion that there was no illegal or improper conduct on the part of RCMP officials. But we are trying to satisfy ourselves, through the royal commission, whether or not this is the fact; that is why we are waiting for its report.

[ Translation]


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Further to the report of the commission of inquiry into the marketing of beef and veal in Canada, has the minister determined or is he in the process of determining what steps can be taken to implement the recommendations of the commission, and does he also intend to act upon the amendment to Bill C-76, allowing beef to be marketed on the same basis as the other foods covered by that act?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I can say to the hon. member that approximately 50 per cent to 60 per cent of the recommendations of the beef commission, and the Senate committee which studied the beef marketing system in Canada, have been or are in the process of being implemented. Also, some of the others are about to be put into place. The legislation suggested by both the Senate committee and the beef commission will be presented to the House in the near future. Work is being done on this legislation at the present time. With regard to the suggestion that we amend Bill C-76, there is no intention of doing that unless the beef producers ask for it.
January 30, 1978

[ Translation]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I would like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the adoption of the legislation known as Bill C-76, did beef meat producer associations make any representation to the minister about their desire to have a marketing board for beef meat in Canada, as well as for quantities of imported beef from other countries?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, there have been some representations by some beef producers indicating that they want this kind of marketing system. I believe the vast majority would rather have-at least, it appears to me-the system we have at the present time, with some protection against imports, etc. They have protection against imports; they had it last year. They have it again this year under the import-export act. All beef producing countries which sell beef to Canada are under a permit or quota system at the present time.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the fact that the Stratton Inquiry now under way in the Yukon, established to inquire into the conduct of the minister's Commissioner of the Yukon, Art Pearson, among other things, in directing that a charge before the judge of the Supreme Court of the Yukon territory be withdrawn, has been referred to by the minister's commissioner in these terms, "I think the whole thing is a crock of bullshit", and notwithstanding Art Pearson's statement, which was not under oath, to attempt to escape the consequences of such a rash and contemptuous declaration, has the minister considered calling for the immediate resignation of his Commissioner of the Yukon?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not. I will await the outcome of the inquiry.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, since the minister must bear ultimate responsibility for the actions and statements of his departmental employees, in this case Commissioner Pearson, and since this entire affair is far more serious than the conduct of the hon. member for Westmount during the judges' affair a few months ago, when the hon. member for Westmount took the only honourable course open to him and tendered his resignation as a minister of the Crown, does the minister not feel obliged to his government, to his office and to the people of the Yukon to call for the immediate resignation of his Yukon commissioner?


James Hugh Faulkner: No, Mr. Speaker. I feel an obligation to let the judicial process of the Yukon, now under way, complete
Oral Questions
itself. As the hon. member is a lawyer, I thought he would have respected that.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, it is a pity that his commissioner, in withdrawing the charges before the Supreme Court, did not follow that course. My supplementary question is: Since the Commissioner of the Yukon is appointed by the minister, holds office at the pleasure of the minister, reports and is responsible to the minister, does the minister not consider it to be a serious conflict for the Commissioner of the Yukon to establish an inquiry into his own conduct and set the terms of reference for that inquiry after restricting those terms of reference to what his commissioner wished from those requested by the elected members of the Yukon legislature?
Does the minister not believe he has any responsibility, in view of his Yukon commissioner's contempuous references to the inquiry set up by him, to intervene as I have suggested, particularly in light of the judges' affair of a few months ago?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had reservations about the setting up of the terms of reference for this inquiry, he could have raised them some time ago.


Erik Nielsen: I did, in the House.


An hon. Member:: He did.


James Hugh Faulkner: I believe the inquiry is well established, and it is presided over by the very distinguished Mr. Justice Stratton. I am confident it will do the job it was originally established to do. I am prepared to wait for the findings of Mr. Justice Stratton.


FINANCE
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Minister of Finance I will direct my question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. As the Minister of Finance is now aware of the serious disruption to the British Columbia construction industry and the threat to the jobs of 1,000 steelworkers in British Columbia caused by the decision of the anti-dumping tribunal on the Algoma Steel appeal, can he advise the House if steps will be taken to alleviate this serious example of regional discrimination by asking the governor in council to invoke section 7 of the Anti-Dumping Act exempting wide-flange steel beams from dumping duty when entered through the port of Vancouver?


Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: Mr. Speaker, members of the British Columbia caucus have made representations to the minister in this regard. No decision has been taken as of this date.
80031 -IVi

January 30, 1978
Oral Questions


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Again I direct my question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister, or have his colleagues, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of National Revenue, initiated studies to overcome the lengthy hearing process of anti-dumping tribunals? In other words, is he, or are his advisers, considering what are called fast-track procedures for some of these more important issues; and is the minister doing anything to improve the priority of regional considerations and protection for regional payrolls in the decision-making processes of anti-dumping tribunals?


Mr. Lumley:: As the hon. member knows, there is a great deal of evidence to be put forward at any anti-dumping tribunal hearing. Although the minister is not happy with the processes of all the hearings, by and large he is doing everything he can to expedite matters in this regard.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, would you allow me to ask a question of the senior minister from British Columbia in order to obtain information on what he is doing to represent the interests of the west coast in this matter?


An hon. Member:: He is doing nothing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


AIR TRANSPORT
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the urgent need to balance this country's huge tourist trade deficit of around $2 billion a year, would the minister take the first opportunity on motions to outline to the House what the government is doing to make sure that the government's airline, Air Canada, makes available the same number and kind of package tours, which include hotels, car rentals, etc., to those who wish to visit places of interest within Canada as it makes available to those wishing to visit places of interest in other parts of the world?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, of course, many operators in the business of offering package tours require aircraft to operate under all-charter policies which are now available for domestic travel or for travel into Canada from other countries. I can tell the hon. member that this year Air Canada and Canadian Pacific are coming close to tripling the number of seats they are making available on charter, with competitive fares, during the peak months of the year. That is in addition to the very large number of charters which may be offered domestically under the revised charter policy approved recently by the cabinet.


George Harris Hees: Would the minister take the first opportunity on motions to tell the House how the number of package tours which will be made available this year by airlines in Canada compare with the number of package tours made available by Canadian airlines to those wishing to travel to other parts of the world, especially in view of the great need to overcome the tremendous tourist trade deficit of this country?


Otto Emil Lang: I will be glad to obtain that information as soon as it is available and make it available to the House, although I doubt it would constitute the substance of a statement on motions. In saying that the number of seats on a charter competitive basis has tripled, I can tell the hon. member that between CP Air and Air Canada together, during the main months of the summer 465,000 seats will be available. I should like to remind the hon. member, also, that the tremendous advantage of these seats is that they are available from almost every city in Canada to every other city, whereas much of the main charter business which may come will tend to be between the principal or larger cities only.


George Harris Hees: I have a final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister not realize that the reason this country has a yearly $2 billion tourist trade deficit is that whatever we are doing is being done far better and far more extensively by airlines, hotels and other governments around the world, and there is need for Canada to get off its seat and get going?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, what I realize, and I hope the hon. member does, is that the question is far more complicated than simply pointing at one particular aspect such as airline travel. The facts show it is not that kind of travel which has changed dramatically: I am referring to Canadians travelling abroad. There is a significant drop, however, in the number of Americans coming to Canada and their length of stay here. One of the most important reasons for this is that some of our accommodation is more expensive than in the United States. That is due to a whole range of factors, including the level of the minimum wage set by the provinces, which is significantly higher in Canada than in the United States.
These are matters to which we must address ourselves earnestly and not, as the hon. member probably would, as simply a political matter of always being in favour of higher and higher minimum wages, as are his colleagues in provincial governments, but recognizing the serious impact of these factors on the whole economy.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. In a report in the business section of Saturday's Globe and Mail, it was reported that at the federal-provincial finance ministers' meet-
January 30, 1978

ing the minister proposed, first, raising the minimum retirement age of public service employees from 55 to 60 years of age and, second, the capping of indexed pensions for those in the public service. Did the minister make these proposals and, if so, had he previously consulted the staff associations representing public servants?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Those proposals were not made at the conference on Thursday and Friday.


An hon. Member:: Where were they made?


QUOTAS ON TOUGH WHEAT-GOVERNMENT INTENTIONS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It has to do with the snow and rain conditions last fall in the prairies, the result of which is that we have a great deal of damp and tough wheat. I should like to know whether there are any points in the west where tough wheat is on quota, because in northern Saskatchewan last week in particular the situation was serious in that there is no quota on that type of wheat and there is no purchasing by the elevator companies.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the Wheat Board has opened certain quotas on tough and damp wheat. The Wheat Board has to do this very carefully, however, and many farmers are taking the trouble to dry the grain themselves. The Wheat Board made it clear that with the lower grades of wheat, particularly with 3-CU, it would be wise for farmers to consider drying the grain themselves, because delivery opportunities for such grain will not be as great as for higher grades.
Delivery opportunities may open up, but only in the last quarter of the crop year. Of course, this is because the Canadian Wheat Board made very successful efforts in selling the higher grades which they knew were available and could only now, after the harvest, begin to fit the program for selling 3-CU wheat into their other programs. That is the message which the Canadian Wheat Board gave the farmers, and I think this matter is best left in the hands of the Canadian Wheat Board so they can be sure to move the grain which is required for what may be a record year.


John George Diefenbaker: I am interested to know that there are some areas of the west in which tough wheat is being accepted. But that certainly does not apply to constituencies in Saskatchewan which are represented by other than Liberal members. I ask the minister whether he will do something about this situation. He suggests that farmers themselves should engage in drying operations. Will any assistance to that end be forthcoming from the government of Canada? Furthermore, will he look into this matter again, because it will be a very serious situation a couple of months hence when the break-up
Oral Questions
takes place in the spring: farmers who have damp or tough wheat will suffer terrible losses unless action is taken?


Otto Emil Lang: We considered, with the advisory committee of the Wheat Board, whether cash advances for drying grain were a desirable thing to invoke. We have put it into permanent legislation so it is there on a standby basis. It was thought the extent of the problem was not such that we should invoke it. Cash advances available for 3-CU come close to the total value of the grain, because they are based on two-thirds of the value of the grain so that farmers, generally speaking, receive adequate cash advances.
I think it is abhorrent for the right hon. gentleman to suggest that quotas might be issued by the Canadian Wheat Board on the basis of representations in parliament by any particular hon. members. I do not know if it reflects how things operated when he was prime minister, but I assure him that in no way and at no time would any political interference take place regarding quotas of the Canadian Wheat Board.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: The minister's annoyance indicates that the truth hurts. I say to him that there was never any interference as there is today through him, and by him, all too often.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. It concerns the evidence given last week before the Laycraft inquiry about the use of wiretaps. The evidence was that the RCMP felt, when authorization was granted by a judge for wiretapping, they had the right not merely to wiretap the telephone identified in the authorization but also any telephone connected to it. I think that is called spin-off wiretapping. The evidence, also, was that that practice was widespread in western Canada. Can the minister advise whether there was any political authorization for this activity, or whether the RCMP were acting on legal advice in coming to the conclusion that they could use this spin-off wiretap technique following passage of the wiretap law in this House?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I will determine those two things.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: When the minister is looking into that question, will he also advise us how many of these spin-off wiretaps have taken place since we passed the law; and can he give us a commitment that this practice is not now being used in Canada?

January 30, 1978
Ora! Questions


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, one of the amendments was designed to require more precise identification of which telephones were to be tapped, in affidavits requesting wiretaps. That amendment is, therefore, a response to the question the hon. member raises.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON ANTICIPATED CHANGES IN MINISTRY
Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether he is contemplating or anticipating any immediate changes in the composition of his ministry?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that is always a possibility, and I believe the House is usually informed when it happens.


Charles Joseph Clark: Can the Prime Minister indicate whether it is the intention of the present Solicitor General of Canada to make a statement on motions, or to raise a question of privilege at the end of this question period, which might relate in some way to the composition of the ministry?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the question period ends in 16 minutes, and I think it is not too much to ask that the Leader of the Opposition wait for that.


Charles Joseph Clark: Let me be more direct. Has the Prime Minister any reason to believe that he may be receiving, and that there may be communicated to the House of Commons today, an indication of the intention of the present Solicitor General of Canada to resign from his position?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is obviously basing his question on rumour. If the rumour is founded, he will know very, very soon. If it is not founded, I think it is a mistake to ask the question.


Charles Joseph Clark: Does the Prime Minister have any information in his possession now, relative to the composition of his ministry, which will be released to the House of Commons at a later time? It is the business and the right of this House to know when the matter is raised.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, of course the House of Commons will know if the Solicitor General raises a question of privilege. If he has such a question, I suggest that he be allowed to speak for himself. I do not think it is too much to ask the House to wait for 15 minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MISREPRESENTATION IN HOUSE BY HON. MEMBER-NEED FOR RESIGNATION
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister related to this matter and to the questions initiated by the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot in light of recent revelations. Is it the policy of the government that a finding by a commission of inquiry into the RCMP that a member of the government, no matter how eminent, may knowingly have misrepresented facts in this House would be a ground for calling for the resignation of that minister, pursuant to the Profumo incident in the United Kingdom?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the question is not only hypothetical but it is absolutely unfounded and, I suggest, malicious.


CANADIAN CULTURE
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. On October 27 of last year, in response to a question concerning the feature film industry, the Secretary of State replied that distribution was key to a resolution of the serious problem facing that industry. He indicated that he hoped to make an announcement of major government policy before the end of the year. Since that announcement has not yet been made, can the minister indicate the reason for the delay? Can he say that he will make such an announcement, that when it is made it will be made in the House, and that it will be more than just a continuation of the present voluntary agreements which are obviously hopelessly inadequate?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, policy decisions have been taken. There is a minor amount of redrafting to be done. I am waiting for an appropriate occasion to make an announcement of the policy which the government intends to implement. It will be much more extensive than a continuation of the voluntary agreements which the hon. member described.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I hope that assurance from the minister means he will be making a statement in this House and that he will make it shortly, because there is a good deal of uncertainty and fear in the industry. Since it appears that the key element in the minister's new policy may be a voluntary agreement with American distributors to reinvest a portion of their profits in film production here, is the minister assured that this will not undermine the creative and financial control by Canadians of their own film industry, similar to what happened in Great Britain or to what exists in our recording industry? In other words, will this measure promote film-making by Canadians, for Canadians, rather than just bringing about greater loss of autonomy and cultural identity in a very important industry in this country?


John (Moody) Roberts: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



January 30, 1978


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board, since the hon. member for Ottawa West referred to Saturday's Globe and Mail. Is the government considering the removal of highly paid civil servants from bargaining units? Was this a position which was placed before the provincial finance ministers on Friday, or at any other time, in order to learn their views in this regard?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the conference among the finance ministers and, where they did not coincide, Treasury Board ministers on Friday morning was devoted to the subject of public service compensation. There were literally dozens of people in attendance. We discussed the general topics of compensation, comparability, ability to pay, and certain other matters. The specific question referred to by the hon. member was not discussed.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I understand, as well, that a question was raised about government spending, and that either at the conference or at some time in the past the federal government indicated it would restrict its spending to an increase of 3.6 per cent per year. As I understand it, the province of Ontario would rather see it restricted to 2 per cent and, if I am not mistaken, Manitoba and B.C. want it to be even less than that. Would the minister advise whether that type of discussion took place, and whether it is the position of the federal government that spending should be increased by no more than 3.5 per cent or 3.6 per cent per year?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, these percentages were discussed among several of the finance ministers, including our own Minister of Finance. This was related to certain aspects of expenditures and did not apply to the totality of budgetary or non-budgetary expenditures, capital or non-capital expenditures, and so forth. As I recall, papers were made available and were public. The hon. member could have the research group of his party pull them together and find the distinctions I am making, because the implications of his comments are not totally accurate.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I might as well carry this thing through to its conclusion. I understand there are now three positions with respect to indexed pensions. One is that the federal government is thinking about capping them. The Prime Minister is in favour of indexing. Even though the Tomenson-Alexander report has not yet been tabled, it indicates dissatisfaction with the form of indexing which exists. That report recommends that pension increases be made on an ad hoc basis.
Can the President of the Treasury Board indicate whether the government has reached a conclusion, particularly in light of what the Prime Minister has stated? Is the minister waiting for the other four or five reports from the province of Ontario,
Oral Questions
the province of Quebec, and the intergovernmental task force? Is he waiting for them before making up his mind with respect to the position toward which the government might lean?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, no decisions have been taken. The Tomenson-Alexander report is a very complex actuarial study. It is now available, but its translation and printing have not yet been completed. As soon as those requirements are satisfied, I intend to make it available to the House. Our position will require a great deal of analysis and thought. We have a commitment to consult with the bargaining agents and the advisory committee on public service pensions. I will be very interested in the hon. member's views as to what position should be taken, when he has access to the report.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: We will be in the government soon.


FISHERIES
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment.
In his press release of January 24, the minister announced that the government might charter foreign vessels to catch deep water fish in North Atlantic zones. Because of an agreement between the Canadian government and the French government, plants in Gaspesie are periodically supplied by French trawlers and one captain said recently that it will be possible one day to fish in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. My question is this: is the minister prepared to tell the House whether or not he will authorize foreign ships to fish in the Gulf of St. Lawrence even though their catches are delivered to Canadian fish plants?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, at the present time the Canadian fleet is quite capable of catching useful species in the gulf. Apart from the treaty governing our relations with France, I do not intend to allow any foreign vessels to penetrate in the gulf.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. With respect to the Cosmos satellite, has the Canadian government notified the U.S.S.R. of the discovery on our soil of a space object, or its component parts, believed to be of a hazardous or deleteri-

January 30, 1978
Oral Questions
ous nature, as we are required to do under article 5 of the international agreement on the return of objects launched into outer space?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, first of all the object has to be correctly identified. There is contact among the Department of External Affairs, the Soviet embassy and our embassy in Moscow, as well as Soviet officials, so they are fully aware of the current situation. Also, I am sure they are reading the press as this matter evolves.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: My supplementary question is for the same minister. Paragraph 5 of article 5 of the same treaty requires the launching authority, in this case the U.S.S.R., to pay expenses incurred in recovering and returning a space object. Has the government contacted the U.S.S.R. in this regard and, if so, what was the result?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, the costs are not yet known. We are keeping a record of all the costs involved, which are rather significant I must say. The owners of the material, when identified, will certainly be well aware of the costs. They are fully aware of the treaty. The international regime will meet its responsibilities, as was indicated to the Department of External Affairs by the Soviet ambassador.


Mr. Paproski:: Why didn't you tell us that last week?


Allan Bruce McKinnon: My final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is to the same minister. If he casts his mind back prior to the launching of the satellite, the preamble to the treaty provides that the nation launching the satellite shall, upon request, furnish identifying data prior to the landing of an object it has launched. Did the government make such a request of the U.S.S.R. before the landing of the satellite? If so, what was the answer?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Not to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.


DISINTEGRATION OF SOVIET SATELLITE OVER CANADIAN SOIL-INFORMATION PROVIDED MINISTER
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, Admiral Falls, Chief of the Defence Staff, is quoted as saying that he knew Cosmos-954 carried a nuclear package and was likely to fall to earth, but did not inform the minister because "they say he is a busy man". Has the minister discussed this matter with Admiral Falls recently, and has any new system of priorities been established in the minister's office which will establish the confidence of competent senior Canadian defence officials in the adequacy of the minister of defence regarding such information?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, first of all, perhaps I may complete my answer to the previous question. Of course, before the spacecraft, or vehicle, or any indication of landing took place, we did not know it was going to land in Canada, which made it difficult. There was communication between Mr. Brzezinski and Soviet authorities,

because they were the ones involved in this problem. With respect to the second question, there is complete communication. With respect to items of priority, there is no question that I was advised, as soon as it was helpful for me to be advised, of the situation regarding the space object.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Before, or after, it landed?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I have responsible officers who are properly carrying out their roles. It would be foolish to interfere with their day to day work. They call upon me, when it is necessary, as a matter of course.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, the time they called upon the minister indicates the confidence they had in his course of action. On Tuesday, the minister said there was a 98 per cent chance that the satellite would not reach the ground. On Wednesday, the minister told reporters there was a 90 per cent chance that they had found the satellite. He said they had found either a piece of satellite debris or the greatest uranium mine in the world. On Friday, Admiral Falls said it was neither.
Can the minister tell to the House whether he and the Chief of Defence Staff have totally separate sources of information, or does the minister simply prefer to spread his own pandemonium, without any source?


Barnett Jerome Danson: First of all, Mr. Speaker, my staff and senior officials have sufficient confidence in me to come at very short notice and receive wise, fast action and decisions. The Chief of Defence Staff and I are working in close concert. I think that is quite an inappropriate question. Any difference is only one in timing: the same information comes to both of us. It comes to me through the Chief of Defence Staff, and we are in constant communication. I was out of communication for a short period of time when I was on an aircraft at the time there was an exchange of information, but it was not conflicting information.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and concerns the Edmonton international airport. Has the minister reconsidered his decision to make only cosmetic improvements to the international airport, when in fact the government's own study shows that structural changes are urgent to meet the growing demand reflecting increasing passenger and commercial traffic?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we have not been able to review the decision concerning major improvements to the Edmonton international airport which we have in the plans. Those improvements will be made as soon as we have financial provisions. We have, however, authorized
January 30, 1978

very important changes, not merely cosmetic ones, to the airport which will improve it for the convenience of passengers. We have done that particularly with the Commonwealth Games in mind.


PARLIAMENT HILL
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. As the renovations in the east block of the parliament buildings are progressing, I wonder if the minister could advise the House who is going to occupy those offices upon completion of the renovations? Specifically, will it be the senators.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With all due respect to the minister, that matter seems to fall under my area of responsibility.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: 
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that it would seem virtually impossible for the National Energy Board to make an intelligent assessment of the proposed Kitimat pipeline until they receive the report of the Thompson inquiry, can the minister assure the House that no action will be taken and no decision reached by the National Energy Board until the Thompson inquiry has completed its work and reported its findings?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague indicated that the future of the Thompson inquiry, the further work it may be called upon to do, and when we will receive its report, is still not known. It is important to emphasize that before the Energy Board considers the application for the Kitimat pipeline it should examine the question of how important it is to Canada, and how important it is to British Columbia, that there be an oil port of entry on the west coast. That is what they have been asked to do, and that is what they are going to turn their attention to before they examine the Kitimat pipeline application.


POSSIBILITY ELEVATOR AT MOOSE JAW ABLE TO SERVICE CHURCHILL-REQUEST FOR STUDY
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the fact that studies regarding a new terminal elevator at Yorkton to service the port of Churchill, as recommended by the Hall commission, have concluded that such a terminal is not viable, and in view of the fact that the government elevator at Moose Jaw has the capacity and facilities to service the port of Churchill and is only some 150 miles farther removed than Yorkton, is the minister prepared to carry out a feasibility study to determine whether the facilities at Moose Jaw can be used to service the port of Churchill?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we will certainly be looking at all the ways in which we will be able to improve the use of Churchill. The use of inland terminals is one of those ways. It does pose certain problems in terms of the gathering of grain in the district surrounding the terminal. We will have to weigh that as well. I do not quite accept the hon. member's use of words in saying that the study found the terminal in the Yorkton area not to be viable. It said there were some very high costs in connection with that terminal, but the viability of it in improving Churchill will depend upon an assessment of many other matters, including the relative rail costs and the relative advantages to the Canadian Wheat Board of being able to sell grain through Churchill. That work will also continue.
2350

January 30, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Fox


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact the government elevator at Moose Jaw has a capacity of some five million bushels and presently has in storage 203,000 bushels, while the average over the year is 50,000, has the minister carried out any studies regarding the use of that elevator? In particular, has he discussed with the minister in charge of the Wheat Board the feasibility of using the drying facilities at the Moose Jaw terminal elevator to dry some of the grain that is damp in the northern part of the province, in order that there will be sales of such grain?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is aware the Minister of Agriculture has visited the Moose Jaw elevator. From time to time expenditures have been made on that elevator to keep it modern and up to date in order that it can do the job it may be required to do, as stated by the hon. member. We have looked at these matters to see how it can be used. We must also keep in mind that there is a private elevator system in the western provinces. This is a government elevator. If the hon. member is suggesting that we put it in direct competition with the private elevator system, he should suggest that and we will bring in an amendment to the bill immediately to allow just that. That is, if he wants that kind of operation of the elevator.


PRIVILEGE
Hon. Francis Fox (Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I resigned from the cabinet on Friday. I would like to tell the House of the events that led to my resignation.
A few years ago, before I entered the cabinet, I was involved in a brief liaison with a married woman who became pregnant. She subsequently applied for and secured the required permission for a therapeutic abortion. On her admission to hospital, I signed the name of her husband to an admitting document.
This fact has become known in the last few days. I discussed it with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and tendered my resignation, which he has accepted. I have today instructed my counsel to advise the attorney general of the province concerned so that he may be apprised of the matter.
These are the facts which the House should know. I take full responsibility for them. I would implore hon. members and the media to let these facts speak for themselves and not seek further details which would only cause harm to other individuals and families.
This incident in no way affected the work I undertook as Solicitor General, nor was it known to any official with whom I have worked.
I deeply regret the difficulty that my resignation may cause to the Prime Minister and to my colleagues in the cabinet. I consider it a great personal honour to have served during the

past 16 months as a member of the cabinet and, through it, the people of Canada. I leave the office of Solicitor General of Canada under circumstances which I deeply regret but with the hope that the ministry and its agencies will have been well served during my tenure. Thank you.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   Wm. Andres@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Multiculturalism: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 451, 693, 702, 823, 834, 988 and 993.


Mr. Leggatt: In each fiscal year since 1970, what amount was spent in the Constituency of New Westminster by the Department of Public Works and those agencies that report to it?


Mr. Frank Maine (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Fiscal Year	From Department of Public Works Appropriations
1970-71	444,864
1971-72	448,381
1972-73	891,539
1973-74	712,040
1974-75	781,125
1975-76	2,041,176
1976-77	3,820,884
1977-78	591,788
(To October 31/77)


Mr. Howie: From January 1, 1977 to date, did the Department of Public Works hire outside consultants and, if so, how many?


Francis William (Frank) Maine: Consultants were hired for projects funded from the Department of Public Works appropriations and the Department of Public Works Working Capital Advance. From January 1, 1977, to November 16, 1977, the Department of Public Works hired 820 outside consultants primarily in the architectural and engineering field.
January 30, 1978


[Stage Direction]
(a) Names
Order Paper Questions
(b) Nature of Work
Mr. Howie: Since April 1, 1977, what amount was paid to farmers in New Brunswick to assist with poultry production?


Eugene Whelan: In so far as
Agriculture Canada and its agencies are concerned, the answer is: $156,895.00 (estimated).
D. S. Watts
Claude Lamothe & Associates
Amyot, Bahl & Brown
Fire Training Consultant in the Pacific Region.
Take-over of all sprinkler systems at MAPP projects, St-Laurent, Centre Ville.
To evaluate fire safety systems in high rise buildings.


Mr. Howie: On November 1, 1977, how many women in the government, excluding Crown corporations, were earning (a) $30,000 and over (b) $20,000 to $30,000 annually?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: (a) 17 women; (b) 392 women.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	What is the projected cost of the buildings in regard to the move of the Department of Veterans Affairs Headquarters to Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island?
2.	Have tenders been called on any aspect of the construction of such buildings?


Francis William (Frank) Maine: 1. The projected cost of the building which will accommodate the Department of Veterans Affairs, headquarters, in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, will be $18,200,000.
2.	No tenders have yet been called.


Mr. Howie: Has the Department of Public Works completed plans for a regional RCMP headquarters at Fredericton. New Brunswick and, if so (a) what is the estimated cost of construction (b) on what date will construction begin (c) what is the estimated completion date?


Francis William (Frank) Maine: To date, Department of Public Works has not received a request from RCMP to commence design and construction for a headquarters building in Fredericton, New Brunswick.


Mr. McKenzie: Are there persons under contract to the Dominion Fire Commissioner and, if so, what (a) are their names (b) is the nature of their work?


Francis William (Frank) Maine: 


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



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Cossitt:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a very brief point of order with regard to question No. 45. This is a point of order I raised before. This question has not only been on the order paper since October 18 when this session began, but for a year before that. It asks how many public servants in the Public Service of Canada have been fingerprinted since January 1, 1972, an operation which the government, in answer to previous questions with regard to one department, the Unemployment Insurance Commission, has acknowledged is going on. I ask this question because it seems that those being fingerprinted are not just those in security positions such as in the Armed Forces and other security conscious positions, but people who are not in any way involved with security matters. Therefore it is a very serious question.
It is an invasion of the right of privacy of public servants of Canada that this is taking place. The government owes this House an accountability for having carried on and for still carrying on the business of fingerprinting public servants, many of whom have literally refused to go along with the procedure.
If the parliamentary secretary cannot supply the answer today as to when this can be answered, will he take it as notice and notify this House tomorrow when this question will be answered?


William Andres: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly take notice of this question. All these questions are serious. We will have the answer for the hon. member.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
80031 -8I/2

January 30, 1978
Petroleum Statistics



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, January 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gillespie that Bill C-12, to require the reporting of certain financial and other statistics relating to the affairs of certain petroleum companies carrying on business in Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my very short remarks last Friday when this bill was initially called for second reading, I will not be taking up a great deal of the time of the House.
We have no serious quarrel with the intent of this bill. As I said when I last spoke on this subject, we question the reason for its introduction because it is our understanding that the information which the government is seeking to acquire through this legislation is in fact already available and is forthcoming on a voluntary basis. We wonder why the whip is being brought in while the carrot is working adequately.
It is our intention to allow the bill to go to committee though we have a number of reservations with regard to specifics, in particular the clause which would allow the minister at his discretion, should he deem it to be in the public interest, to release some of the confidential information gathered as a result of the application of this law, provided its release would not seriously hurt the competitive position of the company concerned. We find it unacceptable that discretionary power of this kind should be given to a minister; we wonder whether the next step will be to give the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Guay) the power to release details of tax returns filed by individuals.
We question the structure of the clause. The phrases "if in the public interest" and "provided the position of the company is not adversely affected" are difficult to reconcile. Our view is that if disclosure is in the public interest, that should end the matter. The clause is poorly drafted and should not be there in its present form.
Another thing we object to is the "break and entry" clause which would allow officials, at the discretion of the minister, to seize files and documents of companies affected by the legislation. We find such "Gestapo" clauses totally unacceptable and out of keeping with the atmosphere which should prevail in our society.
One last point. I recall that during the debate leading up to the incorporation of Petro-Canada, one of the main reasons given by the government for establishing that corporation was that it needed a window on the industry. Spokesmen opposite argued that the government needed to know more about the
[Mr. Speaker.)
industry and its affairs, and that the establishment of an operating company would make this possible. Well, Mr. Speaker, looking at the bill before us which would compel the industry to provide certain information to the government, one can only reach the conclusion that either Petro-Canada is providing no information at all or that the glass in that window is awfully dirty. If that observation is correct, then in the light of the arguments put forward when Petro-Canada was established, one can only assume the Liberal party will have no objection when we seek to remove the government's involvement in this oil corporation.
One last word. We intend to add a "sunset clause" to this legislation since the government has omitted to do so. We agree with the policy favoured by the cabinet, that of getting out of the business of pricing oil and gas eventually, and ceasing to involve ourselves in the day to day operations of the industry. In keeping with this philosophy we see no long term need for a bill such as this, so the clause we shall be proposing in committee is that the act should cease to be enforced after June, 1983, unless the government of the day wishes to take affirmative action at that time to sustain it for an additional five-year period. We do not think this is unreasonable. The government has all the flexibility in the world to extend the date if the situation requires it. On the other hand, under our proposal the economy would not be burdened in perpetuity with one more agency, one more level of bureaucracy costing the taxpayers money and imposing an added strain on the economy.
We shall be seeking from the minister in committee some estimate as to the cost of this program. Every time governments introduce measures like this affecting any aspect of Canadian business, a cost is associated. It is estimated that in Canada the cumulative cost of this sort of interference is a sum in the order of $5 billion to $6 billion. I believe it is time we started to cut back. It is time we began to limit this type of interference with the activities of Canadian business, especially small business which finds government bureaucracy and regulation a serious handicap to growth. We do not intend to vote against the bill on second reading, but we shall be putting forward in committee proposals for improvements and we trust the government will be amenable to these suggestions.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this measure, Bill C-12, is to make it mandatory upon the petroleum industry to provide the government with all the information necessary to ascertain whether the additional revenues they are receiving from rising prices are being reinvested in exploration and development in Canada.
After five years of rising oil and gas prices we do not need any further information in order to answer the question: are the oil and gas companies' profits being reinvested to find new sources of supply? On the basis of all the figures readily available it is clear that the answer is a resounding "No".
The facts are indisputable. The petroleum industry has not increased its expenditures on exploration and development in Canada at a rate commensurate with the tremendous revenues
January 30, 1978

acquired from a 400 per cent increase in the price of oil. Ever since the OPEC nations faced the world with the prospect of steadily rising prices and the present government began to increase the price of oil and gas, we have been assured regularly and systematically by the oil companies that these increases were necessary to provide funds for the exploration and development of our resources.
When the government first proposed bringing the price up to $4 a barrel at the wellhead, we were assured in this House that the money would go into increased exploration and development in this country. When we expressed some skepticism the then minister of energy, mines and resources, the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald), promised in this House that the government would monitor the oil industry to ensure that the very large profits they received would be reinvested in exploration. For three years we have waited in vain for results of this promised monitoring, Mr. Speaker.
It was not until 1977, four years after the price increases began, that we got a monitoring survey which covers the period from 1971 to 1976, and which covers only some 82 per cent of Canada's crude oil production. The information from this First monitoring survey, done in 1977, is sketchy and inadequate. I should like to know why it has taken three years to get a monitoring survey and why it covers only 82 per cent of our oil production.
If the oil industry was not co-operating, why was legislation not introduced much sooner to make it mandatory on the oil companies to respond to the government questionnaire? It is very apparent that the oil industry did not co-operate quickly or willingly. It is also quite evident that the government has dealt with the oil industry with kid gloves.
I hope you will notice Mr. Speaker, how much different the story was in 1974 when the oil industry virtually went on strike and reduced its drilling program in order to force the government to agree to a further increase in oil and gas prices. The oil industry in Canada sent their drilling rigs to the United States and virtually brought drilling in western Canada to a standstill until the government caved in.
The position taken by the New Democratic Party has been clear and consistent ever since this crisis came upon us in 1973. We have said that, apart from increased production, transportation and refinery costs, we see no justification in these price increases unless the additional revenues generated are used to find new supplies of oil, gas, coal, or for research and development in renewable resources such as solar energy and tidal and geothermal power. We think this was a logical position to take five years ago, and we think it is a logical position to take today.
I should point out that the stand we have taken is not confined to this party. A former cabinet minister, the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), said in this House on July 12, 1977, as reported at page 7613 of Hansard:
If the purpose of the increase is to bring about increased production of our petroleum resources, why should the oil companies get any additional revenue,
Petroleum Statistics
even one dollar, that is not used for exploration and development, to bring about such increased production?
To ensure that these greatly increased revenues were applied to exploration and development in Canada, the New Democratic Party proposed that all additional revenue from production of oil and gas, after making allowances for increased production of costs, should be placed in a national resources fund. This money, we contended, should then be used to Finance exploration and development, both in non-renewable and renewable resources, by either private companies or Crown corporations which may be created from time to time by federal or provincial governments. If this proposal had been followed, several billion dollars would have been available for the development of our energy resources, rather than having this siphoned off by the oil industry while a subservient government stood idly by unable to get even a monitoring system set up until three years after the price increases had taken place.
An examination of the figures by the monitoring survey shows that the exploration and development program has fallen about $2.2 billion short of what would have been available had the proposal we made in 1973-74 been put into effect. I believe history will condemn this government for its failure to ensure that the billions of dollars extracted from the consumers of Canada were reinvested in the development of Canadian energy resources.
There is conclusive evidence that the increased oil revenues have not been used for the development and exploration of our resources to the extent that the increases which were granted have been made available. I refer, for instance, to the statement of Mr. Maurice Strong, chairman of Petro-Canada, as reported in the Globe and Mail of October 6, 1977. The article begins as follows:
Maurice Strong, chairman of Petro-Canada, says the oil industry is not carrying out enough exploration with the 'tremendous amounts of money' built up through dramatic increases in the price of gasoline and home-heating oil.
The penultimate paragraph reads:
'Tremendous amounts of money are building up in the coffers of the oil companies,' Mr. Strong said. The money came from price increases justified by the industry on the basis it needed the cash to develop new supplies.
Referring to a criticism by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) that Petro-Canada had spent $100 million on exploration, Mr. Strong said:
-'but that's peanuts compared to what the private oil companies are spending of Canadian taxpayers' money'
He pointed out that after an oil company has spent $5 million in the north, 95 cents of every dollar are provided by the Government of Canada through the tax breaks devised to help oil companies.
I think few people realize the extent to which the taxpayers of this country finance oil and gas exploration. In the Arctic, if $20 million were spent on one well, the oil company would pay 12 per cent of the cost and the Canadian taxpayer 88 per cent. On page 36 of the pamphlet "An Energy Strategy for Canada" issued by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, we find that of an increase of $1 per barrel of oil,

January 30, 1978
Petroleum Statistics
the industry will receive 25 cents even if it does no exploration at all. If it spends 50 cents per barrel on exploration, then its share of the increase goes up to 53 cents. If it spends 57 cents per barrel on exploration, the provincial government gets 44 cents, the federal government gets nothing, and the oil industry gets 56 cents. That is how generously they are treated. Few people in Canada realize the extent to which they are paying for any oil and gas exploration that takes place in Canada.
The significant thing to be noted is that even if the oil companies do not invest any of their additional revenues in exploration, they will still receive 25 cents out of every dollar increase in the price of a barrel of oil. This means that $1 billion in additional revenue will accrue to the industry and, since the government is now committed to a $1 per barrel increase every six months until the price reaches the world price, this will mean that the oil industry can increase its gross revenue by $2 billion a year without reinvesting any of its price rise in exploration and development. That seems to me to be an horrendous situation, and one of which I am sure the Canadian public is not fully aware.
It is an inexcusable deception to tell the people of Canada that this long series of price increases is being used for the purpose of finding new energy sources when our tax laws allow the companies to do nothing and at the same time pocket 25 per cent of the price increases.
The most damning indictment, however, of the oil industry's performance is the government's own monitoring survey which was issued in 1977 and covers the period from 1971 to 1976. We find that the cash generation in the industry from 1971 to 1976 rose from $1,300 million to $3,059 million, an increase of 135 per cent. In the same period of time net profits increased from $560 million to $1,536 million, an increase of nearly 170 per cent. However, total Canadian capital expenditures rose from $1,143 million to $2,338 million, an increase of only 104 per cent. At the same time, oil industry investments in foreign lands went up from $34.7 million to $231.8 million, which represents an increase of 568 per cent.
The report sums it up by saying that from 1971 to 1976 the companies reporting took in $13.3 billion, and that of this amount, $6.7 billion, over 50 per cent, is represented by federal tax profits.
I apologize to the House for using so many statistics, but when we are asking questions on this subject the minister keeps saying that members are being selective in quoting figures from the monitoring survey, that we have picked out items here and there. As a matter of fact I would be very glad if the minister would table the entire monitoring report as an appendix to Hansard so that everybody could read it. It is only a few pages long.
In order to clear up the matter once and for all regarding what is contained in the monitoring survey, I think it is necessary to put some more figures on the record.
Let me further examine the extent to which these tremendously swollen revenues have been devoted to exploration. The

facts prove they were not re-invested into development to the extent the public had been led to believe they would be. To make a fair comparison, the survey compares the total Canadian capital investment in each year as a percentage of the industry's total cash receipts. Table I on page three makes the following comparison, and I will give you the year and the percentage of the total cash revenue which was spent on total Canadian capital investment: 1971, 87.9 per cent; 1972, 75 per cent; 1973, 66.9 per cent; 1974, 65.8 per cent; 1975, 71 per cent; and, 1976, 76.4 per cent.
I want the House to note that the percentage for total capital expenditure varied from 87.9 per cent to 76.4 per cent in 1976, but did not in any of the five years examined equal the proportion which was invested in 1971.
If we take only the money invested for exploration, the figures are even more revealing. They are: 1971, 30 per cent; 1972, 29.8 per cent; 1973, 25.7 per cent; 1974, 23.4 per cent; 1975, 21.8 per cent; and 1976, 24.6 per cent. Here again we see that exploration investment as a percentage of growth revenue at no time in that five year period equalled the 1971 level. As a matter of fact, the report itself sums the matter up very clearly on page 8, and I quote:
Although the monitoring sample has enjoyed a substantial increase in over-all revenues (and profits) over the 1971-1976 interval, certain negative influences have resulted in domestic capital expenditures failing to maintain the same relative growth throughout the period.
Nothing could be more clear than that, Mr. Speaker. The survey has shown very clearly that the percentage of the gross aggregate income of the oil industry which has gone into exploration has not increased but, as a matter of fact, has declined, and this is something about which the government has done absolutely nothing until now.
I am sure it will not be lost on the Canadian public that while the amounts of money re-invested in Canada from greatly increased revenues and profits did not increase proportionately, the oil majors managed, in the period under review, to invest over $832 million in foreign exploration and development. This is money which was taken out of the pockets of the Canadian consumer on the pretext that it would be spent to find oil and gas in Canada, but instead found its way into foreign oil and gas ventures. During all this time the government, which imposed the price increases, has stood idly by while this money was siphoned out of the pockets of the Canadian consumer.
Let me close now by turning to the bill. What does this bill do? First of all, Bill C-12 does absolutely nothing to improve the situation. We may get more complete information as a result of making it mandatory for oil companies to report semi-annually, although that is doubtful unless the government is prepared to examine the books of these large oil companies and the books of their parent companies. I am not very optimistic that the monitoring system is going to give us all the information we need. Certainly the monitoring that has been done to date, which amounts to only a dozen or more pages, is sketchy and inadequate, and making this mandatory without the government asking for much more detailed information
January 30, 1978

will not help the situation, with the exception that the part of the industry which so far has refused to answer questionnaires and supply the data will be compelled to comply.
The legislation the House is being asked to pass does not require the government to tell the oil industry what part of its swollen revenues should be devoted to exploration and development for our energy needs.
It is now five years since the government started a program of moving the price of Canadian oil and gas steadily toward the world level. During this period we were told regularly that the increased revenues to the companies, apart from their normal increased costs for transportation, refining and processing, would go into exploration and development. It has not happened. There is nothing in this legislation to make it happen.
I hope the minister will show us one clause in this bill which requires the oil and gas industry to spend a specific percentage of its aggregate income upon exploration in Canada. The minister does not even request that power. He is asking for what should have been requested in the first place four or five years ago, namely, that companies must fill in questionnaires providing the government with information as to how much of their aggregate incomes have gone into exploration and development. It was taken for granted that it would be done in the first place. When companies do not comply with the proposition that their increased revenues should result in increased expenditures for finding energy sources, whether renewable or non-renewable, then that requirement should be in the act. It is not there.
This legislation is typical Liberal legislation. It is designed to give the impression that the government is doing something when, as a matter of fact, the government is doing nothing. This is too serious a time for being polite about this question. The energy situation in the world is serious. The energy situation in Canada is serious.
Only a few years ago our nation was an exporter of oil, and is now a net importer of oil. In a matter of only a few years, Canada will be required to import half its oil requirements from outside the country and will pay five times as much per barrel as we received for the oil we shipped to the United States in the days when 60 per cent of Canadian oil went across the line. This is a serious situation.
This country must and can find new sources. There are supplies of conventional oil and gas, as well as great potential supplies of oil in the oil sands and in heavy oil, as technology for extracting the oil is developed. This will require great quantities of capital. The only reason given by the government for allowing oil companies to take billions of dollars out of the pockets of Canadian consumers was on the ground that the capital would be found. The fact is that it has not been spent on a proportionate basis, yet the companies have increased their expenditures for oil research outside Canada.
I see no reason why Canadian consumers should pay more for oil, gasoline and home heating fuel; why farmers should
Petroleum Statistics
pay more for gasoline for their tractors or the fisherman for fuel for his fishing boat; or why utilities should pay more for their oil in order to generate electricity, when the government enables multinational organizations to take those profits and spend them in foreign ventures in the Middle East, the North Sea, Guatemala, and other parts of the world.
This piece of legislation is merely a sop. It is merely intended to inform the public that the government is on the job watching the oil companies, and to give the impression that some power will be given to the minister in order to carry out the government's commitment to see that increased prices result in increased exploration. There will be no results, because this legislation does not provide the government with the power to compel oil companies to set objectives and goals as to what percentage of their increased revenue will go into exploration and development.
I am glad the President of the United States apparently has become seized of the seriousness of this question. Last October during a press conference he indicated that the energy situation conjures up problems which are just as serious as war. Also he indicated that in many ways it is a moral equivalent of war. In his statement he said:
As is the case in time of war, there is potential war profiteering in the impending energy crisis. This could develop within the passing months as the biggest rip-off in history.
The grabbing for the financial rewards is what I deplore in the oil industry.
Whether the President of the United States is able to resolve the energy crisis there or not, we do not know. All of us wish him well. At least he has identified the problem, has put his finger on the culprit, and pointed out those who are to blame for the situation which faces the United States and will face that country in increasing measure.
I am disappointed the Canadian government failed to identify the problem and point out the culprit. Instead, it has brought in legislation which ignores the problem and will only serve the purpose of covering up the real problem so that people will think the government is in control of the oil industry when, as a matter of fact, it is the oil industry which increasingly controls the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-12 now before us to establish a control over oil companies to know how in the future those companies will be able or have to spend the money received from consumers through the sale of oil products is a bill which is undoubtedly important in the eyes of the government but which I think will have to be considered very carefully in the committee of the House of Commons with a view to bringing in certain amendments. I am under the impression after perusing this bill that perhaps it will not give the anticipated results.
Mr. Speaker, we are faced with increasingly important problems in the area of energy. Not so long ago the problem of

January 30, 1978
Petroleum Statistics
energy was not in our discussions. It raised no questions, supplies seemed inexhaustible, and all of sudden we find out that there might be a shortage of energy. Last Friday, the minister reminded us in his speech that in the United States last year, as a result of a very severe winter and perhaps a miscalculation on the part of certain networks of distribution, schools and plants had to be closed in many U.S. cities, particularly in eastern cities where fuel had to be allocated for heating homes and hospitals. That allowed us to realize how dependent we are on oil energy in both the United States and Canada, and just a few minutes earlier the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) pointed out that not so long ago Canada was a net exporter of cheap oil, and we are now becoming an importer of high cost oil.
I think there is nothing good about this, and it is important to know what our energy supplies are in Canada, where there are chances of finding oil and natural gas supplies on the Canadian territory. I think surveys have been made, some are now under way and others will have to be made. I do not think that in a country as vast as Canada we have looked everywhere, we have surveyed everywhere to find sources of energy. There are still many areas to be explored to find oil supplies in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, controlling the expenditures made by oil corporations for the search for and development of new energy sources means knowing how the oil companies intend to spend the dollars they receive from Canadian consumers. We often see on television or in newspapers advertisements telling the Canadian consumer: Consume now and pay later. Travel now and pay later. For the past few years, in the case of the sale of petroleum products, the opposite has been done. The consumer has been told: Pay right now to enable the oil companies to accumulate profits in order to search for oil, and presumably to make it available to the consumers. The oil companies did not want to operate the way finance companies ask us to do, namely to commit ourselves financially to search for oil deposits and put them on the market. On the contrary, through the government, they have compelled the consumers to pay for those oil products in advance and at ever growing prices in order to be able to carry out petroleum exploration.
When I hear the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) telling this House that the aim of these halfyearly increases in oil product prices is to curb the consumption of such products among the population, I say this is a joke of monumental proportions, because the minister knows quite well that the Canadian consumer has definite needs. He has habits which he will not give up, and the minister knows quite well that the rate of oil product consumption will go on as before.
In short, Mr. Speaker, I contend that these petroleum price increases really aim at allowing oil companies to accumulate ever growing profits in order first to satisfy the shareholders of these companies and only then, as I mentioned earlier, to invest in exploration. Yet one often wonders whether this exploration is actually done where it should be and why the announcement of the results, is always made at times which
[Mr. Laprise.)
are advantageous to these oil companies, for instance on the eve of petroleum product shortages.
I am convinced that, since the time explorations were started just about everywhere, oil companies already know places where oil deposits can be found. Yet they delay the public disclosure of the result of these explorations, at least at the government's level. So, Mr. Speaker, if this Bill C-12 aims at allowing the government to know those places where oil can be found, it ill be for the greater good of the government and the Canadian people.
For some years, explorations have been carried out in certain Arctic islands, namely King Christian and the Melville Islands. Explorations have also been carried out to determine the most economical or the shortest way to transport the natural gas found in these islands to the places where it will be used. Yet, according to information in my possession, it seems that these natural gas deposits found in these Arctic islands would be sent to the eastern United States or eastern Canada, mainly to the province of Quebec where a supply in natural gas is most needed.
Here is what La Frontiere reported under date of November 15, 1972:
Natural gas, an important element in industrialization, represents only 4 per cent of Quebec's energy, while in Ontario, it reaches 20 per cent. The overall percentage for Canada is 22 per cent.
Needless to say, therefore, it is most important that the province of Quebec should find a source of supplies in one of the finds of natural gas recently made in the Arctic islands. Still, according to the planned route which has just been published, it seems that the pipeline will run through the west, through Hudson Bay, across the Northwest Territories, part of northern Manitoba and Ontario, and then reach the existing pipeline; it seems this gas is intended only for the eastern United States, market, at a time, when Canada is in urgent need of natural gas for its own development.
I therefore ask the minister to have a close look at the natural gas needs of the province of Quebec, the route planned to take the Arctic gas to eastern Canada and the eastern states, to make sure that the industrialized part of Quebec is not overlooked in terms of those sources of gas in the Arctic islands, which, being Canadian sources should serve the Canadian people first. As for surpluses, we do not object to their being exported to our friends south of the border.
I insist on that last point with the minister: the situation warrants a very close look.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, there are one or two matters I would like to discuss with regard to this bill. It is a fairly innocuous bill, but it begs the question: does an industry have to invest in itself? Does this bill mean that because oil companies make money on oil and gas they should be required by law to invest in their own industry? If so, should they invest in solar energy, nuclear energy, or in the coal industry? A good many American companies are diversi-


January 30, 1978

fying because it is not clear whether the government of that country will demand that they invest in uneconomic ways.
The food policy the government is talking about seems to imply that farmers should grow food which is cheap for the consumer but which also allows farmers an adequate return. Does this mean that a farmer who makes money raising pigs should invest in more equipment for pork production, or is he entitled, for example, to buy Canada Savings Bonds or take a well-earned holiday in the south?
It is felt by many people that funds from pension plans should be invested in such things as the housing industry where they would earn reduced rates of interest, although communities would benefit from this kind of investment. However, what is the responsibility of oil companies and other companies to their shareholders?
In the 1972 election campaign the matter of so-called corporate bums was raised, but corporations are made up of shareholders, management and workers. When management personnel receive increases in remuneration, those increases are quickly taxed by the Department of National Revenue. The same is true for workers. If a company expands its operations, presumably more workers and more management will be employed.
Are shareholders entitled to a return on their investment? Funds from private pension plans are invested in stocks, bonds and mortgages, and private pension plans bring in only about 3 per cent. If there is such a great amount of money being made in the oil industry, why are pension plans and registered retirement plans not investing in the oil industry? In many instances there is very little response by corporations to shareholders; that is perhaps because governments direct the management of corporations to expand operations in order to create more jobs.
People with private pension plans are finding that their plans are not keeping up with the cost of living, and some argue that government pension plans are better than any private pension plan in this country.
It was mentioned today that the President of the United States has berated American oil companies, implying that they are something akin to thieves. I think he is taking this stance to cover up the lack of an energy policy in the United States. The American energy policy is a mass of inconsistencies and contradictions. The vice president of the United States, Mr. Mondale, was here recently, and he spoke to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie), but many problems were left unsolved. The price of gas flowing through the Alaska pipeline is not clear. In the United States there is argument about whether United States companies should be allowed to buy much needed gas supplies from Mexico and Algeria. The Carter administration does not like the Mexican price, $2.60 per thousand cubic feet. It also does not like the Algerian price, which is about $4.50. The Algerian source is considered to be insecure. The American administration is telling United States companies that they may not be allowed to buy it.
Petroleum Statistics
Furthermore, the American administration will not let artificially low domestic prices rise to more realistic international levels. If it did, that would boost domestic exploration and production in the United States, where gas supplies are low. The United States cannot have increased domestic supplies; nor can it increase imports. These contradictions in U.S. energy policy create difficulties for Canada. By roadblocking the Algerian LNG project the American administration is jeopardizing the success of the multimillion dollar processing plant which it is hoped to be built at Lorneville, New Brunswick, and which would give that part of Canada some investment clout.
If $4.50 for Algerian gas is too expensive for the United States administration-although apparently customers are willing to pay that much-what does that imply for Alaskan gas shipped via the proposed Alaska Highway pipeline? That gas may cost more than $5.
Regular prices for gas now being sold in the United States range from 50 cents to $1.50. The President of the United States has implied that he does not foresee the price going beyond $1.75. How can Alaska Highway pipeline investors raise money when it is unclear what the eventual price will be? Perhaps the minister can tell us whether Mr. Mondale told him how a $5 Alaskan gas price will be integrated into the American system if the price is to be kept below $1.75. There seems to me to be no feasible way that Alaskan gas at $5 can be integrated with lower priced American gas in the near future. Without some arrangement as to how Alaskan gas will be priced, there does not seem to be means whereby we can assess whether the pipeline is viable, at least within the next few years.
Energy was high on the list of topics and the minister has not stated as to whether the Alaskan pipeline will be built in full or how the Americans will get the price so that it can be built without government assistance. I believe last week the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) suggested that the price of the pipe line could reach $15 billion to $20 billion. I do not believe that was disputed. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me the solution lies in the price of energy. It is a difficult one but it is to allow the domestic price to rise to world levels. Whether we like it or not the Arabs seem to have a corner on the world with respect to the supply of oil and gas, and only through a rise in price will we be able to diversify and obtain energy from other sources.
During the Christmas holidays I was very interested to note that in my riding practically everyone has a wood stove now. Previously they were using oil stoves or electric heat. There is no gas in that part of the country. Obviously because wood is plentiful they have solved their heating problems by using this commodity and it is very cheap for them, particularly if they are willing and have the incentive to cut it themselves.
It is also significant to me that Japan, Germany and Switzerland are paying world prices for oil, yet they are the hard currency countries of the world. Share prices in companies in

January 30, 1978
Air Canada
those countries indicate what has happened. They are at an all time high. Last year in the United States share prices were off 20 per cent and Canada was off 33 per cent. In fact if holding down the price of oil is advantageous to a business economy, then the hard currency countries such as Japan and Germany which pay world prices for oil should be in trouble and we should not.
If there is any value in further statistics, perhaps the minister will inform us in committee. But it seems to me if we are looking to a demand that oil companies, along with other companies, are required to have a specific amount invested in their particular industry, we are courting trouble. After all that is how the Russian system operates. It is based on attempting to assess by government decree what each factory and what each industry should produce. The U.S.S.R. has not given its citizens as nearly as high a standard of living as that in the western world where there is much more flexibility.
I wait with considerable interest to hear an explanation concerning some aspects of this bill. I do believe that if this is the thin edge of the wedge to attempt to tell industry what it should do, it will not in the long run solve our problems.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.

Otto Emil Lang: the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-3, respecting the reorganization of Air Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words concerning the amendments adopted by the Senate and indicate our support for them.
A good number of amendments as printed in Votes and Proceedings are indeed simply editorial changes and renumbering of particular sections to improve their order. There are, however, several amendments of substance. A group of these deal with the manner of reporting and considering matters in parliament. They are very easy for members to agree to and support. One amendment makes clear that any direction given to the corporation would be by order and, therefore, automatically come within the purview of the statutory instruments committee.
The Senate also noticed that a provision in the bill indicated that reports could be tabled and made available to committees of the House of Commons. They thought it appropriate that this should read parliament, and that also seems unexceptional.
The Senate also thought it desirable to be sure any orders made in connection with Air Canada would also be tabled in parliament. That now appears in the amendments.
The most important change in substance was the remaining amendment which was the repeal by the Senate of section 6(2) which had been incorporated in the original bill. This was the section which would enable us to make quite sure that any activities which might not at this moment be contemplated as part of appropriate airline business, or indeed related to it, be within the power of Air Canada to carry out, but with the control that governor in council would first have to approve it. There was some concern about the breadth of this in the Senate. However, I see no real difficulty in removing it and we are also recommending concurrence in this amendment.
It is true that sections of the bill incorporating Air Canada's powers as written are very broad and should allow for almost anything that might have been contemplated to have been undertaken by Air Canada in relation to airline activities. I see no great difficulty in saying that if doubt had to be resolved beyond that, we could be back in parliament dealing with it and specifically assuring Air Canada had the power. I should say that Air Canada is, of course, a very major corporation and the temptation might have been to give it power simply of a natural person and avoid even this problem of whether a section such as 6(2) should have been included. The concerns of parliament as to what may be included in its operation no doubt are of consideration in holding the limit on that.
Air Canada has been operating increasingly effectively, and a recent preliminary analysis of its position for the year 1977 confirms that. The corporation will make a significant profit on its 1977 operations compared with a loss in 1976. It is interesting too that the preliminary analysis shows that increases in costs were really of sufficient size that the increase in revenue to Air Canada from the various fare increases which did take place really only offset those increases in actual cost. Therefore, if nothing more had happened, Air Canada would have once again been in a loss position. Two things did happen which are a credit to the direction in which the corporation is going. One is an improvement in income from certain subsidiary activities such as computer operations in reservations which is being used by other companies. This would pretty well have offset the 1976 loss.
The profit would in fact be almost entirely attributed to the fact that in the course of 1977, with improved efficiency of schedules, route management and aircraft management, the number of passenger miles will have increased while the number of people actually involved and employed in carrying out the service will have decreased. This combination of

January 30, 1978

savings on the one hand and improved revenue by better use of aircraft on the other produced the profit.
It is indeed a substantial profit, as we will see when the final report comes before us, but not one which is in any way out of proportion. It certainly will not be an end to the challenge for Air Canada, its employees and management because there is a very large investment here. The profit will not yet look like an adequate return on capital. That is something which may over time be solved.
I did want to take this opportunity in a preliminary way to congratulate the management and all the employees of Air Canada for this job which they have done and to wish them full success in their continuing development of better air service, increased convenience for passengers and at the same time good management and good operations which produce a better profit for the long term credit of the Canadian people, the owners of the airline.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) for outlining the thrust of amendments proposed in the other place and the report the government has rendered thereto.
When this bill or a version of it, Bill C-17 in the last session of the House, was first introduced, it was done with a considerable amount of urgency. Thus it is rather startling that we should still have it before us now. Just to recap, the bill was introduced in this House on October 28, 1976. It sat on the order paper until May, 1977, and was considered in this House and in committee during June and July. At that time we were told it was an absolute must to have the bill passed by summer. But in spite of the pressure and co-operation of the opposition to expedite passage, we find this bill still before us.
I wanted to point this out, particularly after watching the government House leader on "The Nation's Business" last night. He attempted to blame all the failures of the government on the opposition. He implied one of the reasons there is high unemployment is because there is a Conservative opposition. I do not know how many Canadians he expects to believe that. I just want to make the point that the fact that this bill is still before the House is certainly not our fault. It can be said that we exercised more than reasonable give and take. However, the fact it is before the House probably has some justification. I think the Senate has done a very commendable job in this instance.
My colleagues and I welcome the amendments proposed by the other place. We have no difficulty accepting the general thrust of the three substantive amendments, and certainly no problem with the others which are primarily consequential on those three.
The deletion of clause 6(2) certainly meets with our approval. The amendments to clause 17 having to do with the referral of the annual report is, as the minister pointed out, simply a change in wording, from House of Commons to parliament. The immediate tabling of any orders in council under the provisions of clauses 6 and 8 is an excellent amendment. We welcome these amendments and will certainly support them.
Air Canada
I continue to be perplexed by the attitude of the minister. There can be no doubt about our apprehension in committee with regard to clause 6(2). We expressed a great deal of reservation, taking exception to the wide powers that seem to be granted under the provisions of that particular clause. The minister stood firmly and said it was right with might.
We have now been treated to a new attitude of accommodation. I suppose it is because there may be an election in the air. This new attitude of accommodation can only be related to political considerations transcending everything else. The minister probably worries that he has not really achieved all that much since taking over the portfolio. I suppose he is also concerned about his new found colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner), who seems to be breathing down his neck. He is not that once great western authority on all things ranging from marketing boards to air transportation to grain.
It is interesting to note that early in February the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, not the Minister of Transport, will be convening a meeting with the three western provincial ministers of transport. I find that very strange. They are going to be discussing some of the recommendations of the Hall report. I am not sure whether the Minister of Transport refuses to meet with his provincial counterparts or whether they refuse to meet with him. Nevertheless, it makes for very interesting contemplation. I suppose the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce finds this a rather interesting and enlightening experience in that he can do two things at the same time. He can improve his stature in western Canada and, at the same time, fight one of his old foes. These are indeed interesting developments.
Getting back to the thrust of the amendments, when dealing with this piece of legislation in committee, my colleagues and I tried to eliminate clause 6(2), albeit unsuccessfully. An amendment moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), was defeated in the committee hearings. Quite frankly, we felt at that time that clause should have been eliminated. We still feel that way. It reads as follows:
The Governor in Council may, by order, authorize the Corporation to engage in or carry on any activities not otherwise authorized by this Act.
It is clear that these powers are very broad. This was debated at length. It appeared then and it appears now that if Air Canada wish to engage in any activities other than outlined in clause 6(1 )(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (/), (g), (h), and (i) that this should be done by reference to parliament. In many respects this legislation contemplates a wholesale sellout of the parliamentary process. The powers that are extended in clauses 6 and 8 are very broad.
When you consider the growing tendency to govern in this country by order in council, the fact that in 1976 something like 3,326 orders in council were passed and only 653 published in the Gazette, it clearly causes alarm and consternation to those of us who want to protect, preserve, and enhance the parliamentary process. In our view it is abuse of the order in council process, a circumvention of the parliamentary process.

January 30, 1978
Air Canada
It results in a lack of enforcement of regular accountability procedures by the Crown corporations.
Along with this there is an increasing tendency to rely upon commissions, study groups, task forces and royal commissions. This, too, tends to undermine the position of the elected representatives of the people and the idea of the primacy of parliament. It becomes a form of phony participatory democracy. By and large, Canadians are becoming increasingly disenchanted by their involvement with civil servants, regulatory bodies, commissions and so on. I believe they are demanding more direct contact with the representatives they elect to the House of Commons. I believe they want governments to govern.
The procedure presently used to consider and approve departmental estimates is another example of the circumvention of parliament especially when taken together with the government's refusal to strengthen the committee system- what has gone on more closely resembles a weakening process. We seem to be moving ever closer to government by decree.
It is interesting to note that while this legislation was under consideration in the other place, Mr. L. C. Des Bois, secretary to Air Canada, had this to say about clause 6(2) when he appeared as a witness-this is from the Senate committee hearings No. 2 page 19. He stated:
The wording and the concept of clause 6(2) was not suggested by Air Canada; it was proposed by the government itself in the original drafting as a means of avoiding having to go to parliament to clarify a point which was really something that could be administered in the context of the broad powers given to the corporation-
It was not the corporation but the government which sought this provision, even though, as the minister pointed out when he dealt with the matter, it was felt the department would not be called upon very often to exercise a prerogative under this provision.
The main drafter of the bill, Mr. Jim Lyon, who is now working with the Department of Finance, told one of the Senators that the concept of the bill was that the minister was administering the prerogatives of the shareholders. The members of the other place reminded him that, according to a government discussion paper on Crown corporations, it was parliament and not the minister which was empowered to administer the prerogatives of the shareholders of the Crown corporation.
It is interesting to note the following sentence in the document entitled "Crown Corporations, Their Direction, Control and Accountability":
It is commonly understood that Crown corporations, although largely independent of parliamentary scrutiny and control, are still in the final analysis instruments of parliament. Logic then dictates that parliament should exercise what might be called the shareholders prerogative with respect to Crown corporations on behalf of the Canadian public.
Clause 6(2) clearly runs counter to that recommendation. Subparagraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) state in explicit detail the powers and responsibilities of the corporation, and then there is a catch-all clause which states that it

-may do such other things as are necessary or incidental to the carrying out of its activities.
After that there is, of course, a "grandfather" clause which provides that the governor in council may authorize the corporation to carry on or engage in any activities not otherwise authorized by the act. Clearly this establishes a very dangerous precedent and one which could be applied to other legislation. I certainly welcome the minister's change of heart in connection with that provision.
We applaud the sentiments expressed by Senator McElman that there is "a growing feeling in parliament that parliament should be more jealous of the powers that it extends by law to ministers to enable them to make regulations." I could not agree more. It would be well for us to bear statements like that in mind when considering other pieces of legislation and the granting of extraordinary powers to corporations such as Air Canada.
We welcome and support the other changes which have been made as a result of the Senate study of this bill. We are pleased with the support the Senate has given to our proposals having to do with the automatic reference of annual reports to the parliamentary committee. We apologize that we failed to insert the word "parliament" rather than "House of Commons". We certainly accept the amendment in good faith. The changes are welcome and I am sure that, as a result of them, the bill will serve the best interests of the airline and of the travelling public.
I should like to turn now to a few other matters which I have found somewhat disturbing, developments which have disappointed large segments of the Canadian population.
Members of this House, particularly those who serve on the transport committee, dealt with this legislation in good faith. There were some aspects of it we felt could be improved, and others about which we are still unhappy. Certain amendments have been accepted and I believe there was a general desire to give Air Canada the legislative framework it required in order that management might do its job more effectively. We made it clear we felt it was incumbent on management to accept its responsibilities to the public and to the House.
This debate comes at a time when the public is seriously questioning the structure and level of air fares in Canada. There is a feeling in many quarters that air passengers are being ripped off; there is also a consensus that in some cases fares bear no relationship to economic realities.
Many of us share the opinion expressed by the Minister of Transport about the management of Air Canada, that it is in the capable hands of a team of credible senior executive officers. We had hoped that this legislation would have been important in helping them carry out and even extend the mandate of one of the truly great national airlines.
Air Canada has come through some very rough periods in the last few years. Losses of $65 to $66 million were incurred over the past three years prior to 1977, so we are naturally happy that this has been reversed and hope the trend will continue. I


January 30, 1978

think most of us consider that the recent profit came about as a result of Air Canada getting the message across to the public that fares in this country are competitive when the price of fuel, landing fees, weather, replacement of equipment and such things are taken into account. Air Canada started talking about a further increase in fares before the bill was introduced, however. Many of us feel this is a mistake and that there is still a lot of productivity to be gained first. I believe we should call upon Air Canada to reconsider its request for a domestic fare increase.
The operation has been streamlined, but I believe there is still room for improvement. Recently management has seen fit to extend free pass privileges to some 20,000 employees, which has since been aborted, but this gesture was not well received by the travelling public who were paying full fare. The resulting controversy was unfortunate and caused embarrassment all around. I do not argue with offering employees a bonus, but I argue with the manner in which it was handled. It may have been good for employer-employee relationships but it was not handled in the right way. The news broke as a result of some good investigative reporting by the Globe and Mail not an announcement by the airline. Surely if the airline had wanted to give a bonus for a job well done in 1977, it should have made a clear public statement and given the rationale behind the decision. The reaction of the Anti-Inflation Board and of Revenue Canada should have been explored. Also, given the fact that we have a tourist trade deficit of $2 billion, it seems to me that the passes should have been restricted to travel in Canada.
It has been the policy of Air Canada and other airlines for a long time to issue passes. I am informed that Air Canada's policy is very generous-perhaps overly generous. Perhaps it should be reviewed and the details made known to the shareholders, namely, the people of Canada. The gesture certainly focused attention on the question of free passes, and there has been considerable response in the media, particularly from people who use Air Canada.
The Ottawa Citizen carried a headline on January 21, 1978, "Free Tickets Standard Procedure on Airlines". The article reads in part as follows:
Most free airline passes are issued in the interests of public affairs, business, inter-airline competition and generally to promote travel by air.
That's not to mention, however, the politicians, newspaper representatives, business interests, tour operators and the myriad of air-line employees hitching a free ride.
'People in high places,' says Air Canada's regional officer Hugh Riopelle, 'are eligible for flight passes, depending on the reason-and business is one of them.'
Mrs. Edward Dunlop, wife of the president of the Toronto Sun newspaper, for example, recently accompanied her husband to England on a pass called 'Pos F status' for guaranteed seating for free first-class return travel, worth $1,502, plus $8 tax.
Public affairs officers, managers, salesmen and other top representatives of the 'people's airline' are given quotas of free tickets (either first-class or economy) and it's 'up to the discretion of various offices to dispense the passes as we see fit.'
A free return ticket generally would apply to any destination serviced by the system.
Air Canada
It is interesting that even relatives of journalists are included amongst those who are issued free passes on our national airlines. That is rather strange as journalists are usually the first to point the finger. I will not say any more, Mr. Speaker, except that I think it is incumbent upon the airline to review its policy regarding passes and to make that policy known to the public.
The third point I want to raise is the airline's attitude toward domestic air charters. In my view the airline's position with respect to promoting discretionary air travel in this country has been selfish to say the least, and certainly is not forward looking. The record will clearly indicate that the airline has responded rather negatively instead of positively in terms of exploiting this vast new discretionary travel market. It has been proven throughout the world that there is a large potential here which involves marketing and getting on with the job.
This is clearly exemplified by the fact that the subscription of Canadian charter class fares which was made available last year was immediately sold out. There has been a substantial increase in the allocation of these seats for this year, and this is a clear indication of a tremendous market potential. Surely it is incumbent upon the airline to get on with the job of capturing that market.
One should be reminded that Air Canada was very reluctant to get involved in a very active way in the international charter market at the beginning. It seems to have adopted the same attitude in respect of the domestic charter market.
My colleague, the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave), will be talking about Air Canada's attitude in respect of cattle charters, and I would point out that it has been certainly less than positive in this area. The airline seems to lack the innovative requirement and drive to provide a service that is optimum at a reasonable cost. Air Canada does not seem to move unless it is cajoled into doing these things.
The service to Atlantic Canada, about which some of my colleagues from that area will be speaking, is another area the airline has not served, or in respect of which it has not fulfilled its mandate.
It is interesting to note that Air Canada is not alone in this regard. The Gazette of this morning carried an article under the headline "Men Who Fought Laker Find Business Booming". All major airlines fought Freddie Laker and his new concept of a sky train, but what he has done really is expand a market potential which would otherwise not have been there.
The attitude of the minister does not seem to be much improved. If I recall correctly, true to his autocratic form he attempted to prevent the CTC from going ahead with its hearings. We welcome his recent announcement expanding the ABCs relative to the decision handed down by the CTC. I am not sure whether the minister has given such a directive, but I would hope that he and the Air Transport Committee would seriously consider a reduction to 30 days from the 45 days proposed by the CTC.

January 30, 1978
Air Canada


Otto Emil Lang: That has been done.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The minister indicates he has done that, and I welcome that information because I think this is an excellent move. I think the ball now is clearly in the courts of the airlines of this country, and particularly in the court of Air Canada. The challenge is there for the company and I urge management to use some imagination and progressive marketing in exploiting this potential.
Our national airline must certainly be used as an instrument to promote national unity. I get the feeling from time to time that Air Canada is a bit spoiled. Because in fact it has had a captive market for far too long, it has become over-comfortable in its preferred position. It has a long way to go before reaching the status of a truly great airline. It cannot rest on its laurels and it cannot expect the continued good will of the Canadian public. The airline must improve and demonstrate that it intends to become, and will become, a great airline, fulfilling its mandate effectively and efficiently. It will then get the support it deserves.
This brings me to my fourth and final point, having to do with Air Canada's intended acquisition of Nordair. On the surface the announcement appears to reflect a continuation of the policy of a former chief executive officer of the airline, Mr. Pratte, as well as a former minister of transport. They indicated they felt we would be better off in this country with one airline. As a matter of fact I have a quotation from that former chief executive officer. It is a Canadian Press article under the headline "Travel Would Be Better With One Airline".
I believe competition keeps airlines keen, imaginative, and innovative, and I hope it will continue. The proposed acquisition of Nordair by Air Canada runs counter to stated government policy. I am not pleased with Air Canada's proposed plans to acquire Nordair. Air Canada is a national airline, a trunk airline, and not a regional carrier. Therefore its operations are not necessarily compatible with the operations of a regional carrier. It should concentrate primarily on being a truly great national airline.
Furthermore, I am not convinced that monopolization is the answer even in respect of the airline industry. The position the government has taken with regard to this acquisition is not clear. I am not sure that the minister was even informed of the intended offer to purchase. It is quite obvious that Nordair, one of the more successful regional carriers, was being harassed to death by Air Canada, and finally succumbed and offered to sell.
In this connection I should like to quote from a letter written to me back in February, 1975, by a vice president of Nordair. Fie stated in conclusion:
Since the regional carrier policy and its application depends to some extent upon the delineation between the role of the mainline carriers including Air Canada and the regional carriers, it is disturbing to think that the country's largest airline has paid so little attention to this problem and is seemingly not interested in what Canada's policy is with regard to the remaining commercial carriers. Needless to say, this is bad news to the regional carriers who have been

relying on the regional carrier policy as their planning base for growth and expansion.
That clearly outlines the kind of interference and harassment with which the regional carriers have been afflicted.
The government has stated regional air policy, but it really has not fostered the implementation of that policy. Having regard to what has been allowed to happen over the last few years, I think a re-examination of that policy is necessary. Is it the government's intention to rationalize, and what is the future of regional air carriers in this country? Are we to end up with one mainline carrier and one regional carrier? I do not know what the government plans. In view of the kind of rationalization that appears to be taking place, it is certainly incumbent upon the minister to look once again at regional air policy. He should perhaps delineate some guidelines and patterns for growth in order that this important segment of air transportation can continue to grow, flourish, and meet the challenges of the respective regions.
I see that my time is almost expired and we are approaching the hour for private members' business. Let me simply say that we on this side hope the legislative mechanism which is to be approved in the next little while will provide the kind of framework in which Air Canada can do the job it was intended to do, thereby fulfilling its mandate.
At the same time I want to place on record my very deep concern about this airline infringing upon the regional carriers. Before there is a conclusion of this proposed transaction currently in process between Air Canada and Nordair, I hope the minister will give this House and the country the benefit on his thinking regarding the future of regional carriers, as well as the future of third-level carriers, and give some clear outline of national airline policy in this country.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: And that includes Nordair for Hamilton.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)- Veterans Affairs-Request that basic rate of war disability pension be reconsidered; the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)-Public Service-Allegation departments circumventing growth guidelines; the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) -Agriculture-Food policy conference- Proposals of government.
January 30, 1978


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions and public bills.
It is my understanding that an agreement has been reached to proceed directly to motion No. 17 appearing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott). The hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis).


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, motion No. 4 stands in my name. It is substantially similar to one adopted by the House on December 13, 1977. That motion gave the joint committee 90 days to bring in a report. Forty-eight days have now elapsed, and it is my hope the committee can be named soon in order for it to proceed with its work. With the understanding there will be a naming of that committee this week, I would defer for the present to the agreements which have been worked out with the spokesmen of the various parties.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Of course the Chair can play no part in resolving the request of the hon. member. I cannot give that guarantee. All I can do is ask for unanimous consent to proceed with motion No. 17.


Mr. Cafik:: Mr. Speaker, in respect to the matter raised by the hon. member, it was discussed with me just prior to this time. Arrangements will be made for instructions to be given to our whip to negotiate the members of that committee. Hopefully that will be done tomorrow or the next day in order to put the committee in place.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All being well, is there unanimous consent to suspend the consideration of motions Nos. 2, 4, 5, 11, 12, 15, and to proceed directly to motion No. 17?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[ Translation]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, while I do not object to unanimous consent, I should like to point out to the Chair that when the majority party needs unanimous consent from all parties to amend an order of the House the representatives of every party should in common decency be consulted. Mr. Speaker, I am the House Leader of the Social Credit Party of Canada and I have always showed understanding and co-operation with all other leaders. I was very surprised when I heard you say just now, Mr. Speaker, that there was unanimous consent, since we had heard nothing about this. I do not know if anyone doubts the existence of my party but I certainly am here as the member for Bellechasse.
I have very often been told that I do not need a microphone to be heard, that my voice is strong enough to reach every corner of the House. I wish to continue to be co-operative and understanding and to facilitate the business of the House. I also wish that when there are consultations, when the Presi-
Private Members' Business
dent of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), the government House leader, wants to have serious talks with his counterparts, he would call us to his office. I understand that sometimes there have to be hasty consultations on the floor. I understand all that. After ten years in parliament there are certain things you know. You also learn not to let others pull a fast one on you, hoping that you will run for cover like a rabbit.


Mr. Isabelle:: Babbitt.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: My colleague, the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle), is trying to be funny. I said rabbit intentionally, Mr. Speaker, as I have seen a TV program in which the rabbit was always nosing around, always getting into trouble and always the loser. I do not want to be a rabbit and a loser.
I am willing to go along today with the proposals that have been made, but from now on I want everyone to be aware of our existence and when consultations to get unanimous consent to change the rules are held we should be consulted. I think we will be bright enough to understand that the request is justified and will agree to it. Then, agreement having been reached by the parties in this House, Mr. Speaker will not have to lie. He will be telling the truth.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I understand the hon. member's position, and perhaps I might say just a word. No one spoke to me specifically about what was to be done today. What has been happening in the past few weeks is that a list of the private members' business for the ensuing week has been passed around, and we all see it. When I have received that list, I take it for granted that if I do not object to it, in effect I have agreed to it. I suppose it was taken for granted, since there was no objection by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), that his party agreed as well. Even so, I think his point is well taken. It might be a good idea for the government members who make these arrangements not just to send the sheet around and assume that is the end of it, but actually they should speak to representatives of each of the parties.


Mr. Ellis:: Mr. Speaker, the list referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is posted on the bulletin boards in the lobbies. A close check of that list will indicate that there is an entirely different matter listed for this afternoon. That arrangement was made very late on Friday afternoon. Thus, the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott) has been asked to fill in at the very last minute, in fact approximately four parliamentary hours before this took place. I appreciate the consternation of the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), but the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton is quite prepared to fill in during the time remaining.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I was not present in the Chamber for all of the remarks made by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert). In light of the comments made

January 30, 1978
Private Members' Business
by Your Honour in respect to this question which has been raised on a number of previous occasions, it is my understanding that unanimous consent implied an arrangement among the individuals who were in fact vying for time in private members' hour, as opposed to unanimous agreement among parties. That may not be an accurate understanding of this, but the comments that have been made in the House certainly give rise to a need for some discussion on how we might deal with this in an orderly manner and in a manner which is agreeable to the House leaders of all parties.
1 think that the matter should be taken up at a later date to ensure that this kind of difficulty does not ensue and that there is a general understanding by the House leaders of all parties of the procedures to be followed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The last point made by the minister is quite correct. I think in the ruling given recently the Chair did request a representative of the government to consult with the interested members on the various motions. We are not actually looking at government orders. This is the private members' hour and we are addressing ourselves to motions put forward by private members. Since members are not always available for that kind of consultation, perhaps there is an alternative way of protecting the right of members and that is to approach House leaders, thus ensuring that when a member involved is not available, at least the House leader of his party is contacted and consulted.

To my mind, the point the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) brought up goes beyond the scope of deliberations during the private members' hour. When there is general consultation of the House, occasionally the representative of his party or he himself are not consulted as they should be. During the period assigned to the study of private members' bills, of course we discuss bills introduced by hon. members as private members. When I brought down my decision in this regard shortly before Christmas, 1 recommended that the government be asked to continue to co-ordinate the business to be dealt with during the private members' period, but to do so in consultation with each hon. member individually. It may be that the suggestion of the hon. member and the criticism of the minister will take us one step further. Those consultations should perhaps include as well the representatives of the parties, to ensure that all hon. members in the House, specially the party leaders in the House, are kept informed of the debates to be held or changes in debates which can come up every day, including the debates held during the private members' period.
Having said that, I shall now submit the following motion to the House-
[Mr. Cafik.)


NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
Mrs. Jean E. Pigott (Ottawa-Carleton) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the National Capital Commission is not sufficiently accountable to those who live in the national capital region or the people of Canada, and exercises its powers in an arbitrary manner without adequate consultation with other levels of government and that, as a just step, there should be a permanent standing joint committee on the national capital region.
She said: Mr. Speaker, sometimes it is said that it is the last straw that breaks the camel's back, and I am certain that the government is wondering at the rash of editorials over the weekend and at the press coverage of the appointment of the new chairman of the National Capital Commission, the former hon. member for Westmount. I think it is the straw that breaks the camel's back, because one of the things the people who live and work in this city and who pay taxes have felt is that the NCC has become a political football to this government and has not taken in the cares and concerns of those who live and work in this whole region.
It was Harold L. Ickes who said "I am against government by crony". Public office is a public trust, not a political prize. The recent appointments to the chairmanship of the National Capital Commission suggest that the job qualifications for that position have more to do with partisan public relations and assembly of land than the long range development of the national capital region. It seems that candidates for this position have to be former politicians who are closely linked with the present government.
The future of this city and important relations involving many levels of government across provincial jurisdictions need strong and enlightened leadership. The federal government, however, has completely ignored any but the most partisan considerations in the appointment of the NCC chairman. The ability of the former member for Westmount and of Mr. Juneau are not the issue. At a time when the NCC is at the centre of serious problems in this region, its whole operation must be an example of justice and accountability, both in fact and in appearance.
The NCC has now become what is really a national capital corporation in which the "capital" is represented in the dollars and cents of land management and powerplays redirect millions of dollars worth of buildings without the consultation of local elected people, and not in the creation of a meaningful symbol for our country.
The National Capital Act passed in 1958 states that the purpose of the NCC is to prepare plans and to assist in the development of the national capital region "in accordance with its national significance". Is there national significance in the fact that no elected official of any of the regional or local municipalities of the national capital region sits on the NCC?
January 30, 1978

In April of 1977 Mr. Pierre Juneau said:
-it is the duty of the NCC to nurture and expand the spirit of co-operation and good will which characterizes its relationship with the community of which it is an inseparable part.
But in its 1975-76 annual report, the NCC maintained that municipal responsibilities "cannot be construed as representing the national interest". It is tragic. How is this statement expected, again in the words of Mr. Juneau, to "expand the spirit of co-operation and good will"?
For most of its history the NCC and its predecessors concerned themselves with the beautification of the capital area. During the 1950s the commission began to assume the job of over-all planning. As the owner of upwards of 40 per cent of the land in the national capital region, the NCC has exerted a strong influence here and has been able to build whatever it wanted on its land without even getting a building permit.
Local groups and politicians have faced a deaf ear when they tried to become involved in their own planning and decision making in their city. There are many examples. The situation at Carlsbad Springs is just one of them, and it is a corner of my wonderful constituency of Ottawa-Carleton.
In 1974 farmers at Carlsbad Springs who wished to discuss expropriation plans involving their lands were told to report their complaints to a tape recorder since no authorized person was available to answer questions. It is no wonder that people at Carlsbad Springs were prompted to say:
We are just not happy with the NCC's behaviour. Poor communications with area residents was the standard pattern and often we would learn of events through press reports.
Mr. Juneau made a solemn commitment to me that he would meet with the residents of Carlsbad Springs, and now he is gone. There have been six chairmen in ten years, and five general managers. The heavy hand of this kind of bureaucratic decision breaks the spirit of people who live in that area. Sometimes I really wish that I could have taken Mr. Juneau up and made him listen to those wonderful farmers who love that land out there, who produce excellent market gardens, but who only live on year to year leases, men who really care about their land ant that it be productive, but yet have no sense of future from the commission.
The recent relocation of federal public servants to Hull is a failure as a planning effort. We have created some of the worst work ghettos. I do not say that certain public servants should not have gone. We should have evened out development on both sides, but producing those cement work ghettos to me is like planning out of a dark age. I have repeatedly received complaints from public servants, not because they had to move to Hull, but because they have to work in giant cold buildings with no souls. If that is the kind of planning which goes on in the Department of Public Works and in the National Capital Commission, we need some fresh air.
Local municipal officials in both Ottawa-Carleton and in the Outaouais region have been justifiably critical of the lack
National Capital Commission
of consultation and information which accompanied the relocation. For many residents of western Quebec the federal relocation to Hull is better described as interference. There is a sense that federal buildings such as Place du Portage are destroying the French culture and language by destroying existing neighbourhoods. I have a feeling we could have done much better.
While all of that was going on, no one thought through the planning process of what should take place here in this city. There were no plans regarding Rideau Centre: it was all talk. There is an incredible number of empty parking spots two blocks away from this beautiful building. There was no planning whatsoever.
The Auditor General has criticized the NCC for a financial arrangement it made with the Department of Public Works involving $22 million for the purchase of land in the central core of Ottawa. Rather than follow the directions of the orders in council authorizing the purchase of these properties, the NCC made an arrangement which avoided the need to seek parliamentary authority for such moves. Planning by the NCC has often been marked, not by the spirit of co-operation about which Mr. Juneau spoke, but by an inclination to move unilaterally. The regional and provicial governments have been moved to call for a reduction of NCC powers in a number of areas. They have called for a reduction of NCC power to expropriate land, for an end to federal intervention in the planning field, and for a realignment of NCC powers to make them more narrow.
It has been suggested that the NCC remove itself from planning altogether and merely be responsible for such things as cultural development in the national capital region. The NCC plan for the national capital region, called "Tomorrow's Capital", favours centralized growth in one area, but the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton plan favours decentralization to a number of areas. Such sharp differences between non-elected officials and elected bodies from the provinces suggest the adoption of a requirement that NCC plans agree with local and regional plans before they become official.
Under the BNA Act the provinces are responsible for municipal affairs, including planning. This planning is often delegated to regional and local officials, yet the federal government, through the NCC, seems to believe that it is the only one which has the constitutional power to plan for the development of the "national interest" in this region. What we need is a definition of what is the national interest. The lack of a proper forum for discussion of the national interest has contributed to intergovernmental tensions.
The legal mandate of the NCC to develop the national capital has become instead a mandate for secret decisions. Rather than sensing the mood of Ottawa and Hull in a spirit of open government, the NCC has operated as a remote, self-sustaining wing of the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) office. Sometimes public servants and residents of the city of Ottawa say they have canals and bike paths. We remember the famous time in history when it was said: "Let's give them

January 30, 1978
National Capital Commission
bread and circuses". That was to divert attention from the fact that in this town we pay higher taxes and a commercial industrial rate about 20 per cent higher than in any other area of Ontario. This is due to the fact that the federal government does not pay its share.
In 1972 journalist Patrick Watson, writing in Maclean's, described the "Cool Trippers" who exist in many government offices. Cool trippers survive and keep the great machine going, not by correcting problems, but by being consummate experts in tolerating the intolerable. Problems are not solved; solutions are not found. Long-term development has given way to maintenance of the status quo through an agency which lacks accountability, access, and openness.
Prior to Christmas there was a breath of hope that this committee would be formed and that we would be well on our way, but half the time of the committee has now gone by and we have not even decided who should be on this committee. That is the kind of thing which makes people feel that the matter of the future of the region has been shoved to one side.
At present it is unclear just what type of consultation takes place. We need a formal, consultative and co-ordinating mechanism to ensure that planning in the national capital region is thorough and based on dialogue, not arbitrary and hidden directives. That is why 1 believe that the federal government might well consider its commitment to consultation and accountability through a standing committee on the national capital region with representatives from all levels of government. I believe it is here in this parliament that there should be input with regard to the public interest and to the future of the national capital region.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that 1 support this motion. 1 commend the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott) for introducing it to this House. I cannot agree with all the remarks she has made in the course of this debate, but I am in substantial agreement with the general thrust of her complaint about the National Capital Commission.
Contrary to the opinion of the hon. lady who just spoke, I believe that the new chairman of the National Capital Commission will make a great contribution in that position. He brings to it a very great background of experience. He is sensitive, he is a bilingual person, and he knows as much as any member of this House or anyone outside it the problems of this region and the special character of the national capital. At this stage of his career it is a challenge for him to prove that he can make this further contribution and leave his mark. I believe he is so motivated, and I look forward to a good chairmanship and a good regime under the former member for Westmount.
That is not to say that I am not without reservations about what is going on. I cannot help but express my concern about the fact that a motion adopted on December 13 in this House to strike a joint committee of this place and the other place to deal with matters of the National Capital Commission has not been followed through. It is now 48 days since the motion was

passed, and the committee was given instructions to bring its report in within 90 days. This is manifestly impossible. The time will have to be extended, and there is very important work to be done.
There are many things one could say about the National Capital Commission. The very concept of running a national capital through a Crown corporation is something which has always puzzled me. The National Capital Commission is not elected, as the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton said. There is not a single elected person on the commission. The commission talks about its mandate. I have attended public meetings at which planners for the commission talked about their mandate, as if nobody else in the room had a mandate and as if elected people had no mandate at all.
According to those planners, only this Crown corporation, the existence of which is at the decree of the executive, has a mandate to do great things. It is my hope that members of this temporary joint committee-the motion before us would create a permanent one-would go to Washington for a short visit. We can learn a great deal from Washington's experience. There is a body in Washington called the National Capital Planning Commission. That body is not permitted to have title to one acre of land. That body is restricted to an advisory and planning capacity, and that came out of the bitter experience of what happened in Washington when an authoritative federal agency tried to deal with a heavy hand and misused ownership of land in an attempt to impose its view.
No clearer example of misuse of the power of land ownership can be seen than in the present National Capital Commission. Members of the NCC and spokesmen for them appeared before the joint committee over a year ago and argued that they had a vision as to how the national capital should be planned. There was a day when they alone had the technical expertise to do planning, but the growth of planning capacity in the regional municipality on the Quebec side, Communaute Regionale de l'Outaouais, and in the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton on this side has brought an entirely new element into the picture. The planning resources at local disposal are substantially in excess of the planning resources at the disposal of the National Capital Commission.
When the National Capital Commission publishes a document, such as "Invitation to Dialogue", which it published in 1975, it said it would create a community of 100,000 in Carlsbad and 100,000 on the other side of the river near Aylmer, and link them with a transportation corridor, a corridor going from a place where no one existed to another place where no one existed, at a time when we have negative growth forecast in the national capital region itself and the government is implementing a policy of decentralization. The National Capital Commission have given the figure of 25,000 jobs-that is their figure-to be moved out of the national capital region as part of the decentralization process. They mentioned that figure in their 1975 annual report. I am happy to note that that figure has been substantially revised down-
January 30, 1978

wards in the order of 15,000 jobs, of which only 5,000 are permanent.
Nevertheless it was inconceivable to me what monstrously bad planning advice the NCC offered. Then it said to the regional municipalities: "If you don't conform to our vision of how things are going to be, you can't cross our land". They own large blocks of land in this region, and they threatened in an arbitrary, tryannical, irresponsible fashion to thwart the plans of the regional municipalities, plans which were arrived at after extensive public hearings in a democratic way, because they did not conform to the ideals of those heaven-sent planners hired by the Crown corporation called the National Capital Commission.
If we can learn anything from the Washington experience it is that we cannot create a body with excessive powers which are essentially based on land ownership. And based on its current concept of its mandate it should not be permitted, although theoretically responsible to an elected body, indirectly to the cabinet through its Crown corporation status, to act in the way that the Auditor General criticized when they subverted the will of parliament in the exchange of properties they had no business acquiring, in the way in which they kept their books, and in the way they let contracts without tenders.
There is a house cleaning job to be done in that commission. I want to say, to the credit of the former chairman, who I think was a conscientious and good chairman, that he became aware of the magnitude of the problem and he kept a low profile. He quietly worked at improving relations and brought a personal integrity to his job, and I want to pay tribute to him for that on this occasion.
The task of re-examining the powers and functions of the National Capital Commission is an imperative task. Those of us who are residents of the area say to the members of this place and the other place who will serve on that committee: "Please take an interest and do a job." We want this capital to be a place that is a showpiece, a pride, a symbol of Canadian nationhood. We want it to be a place where the two official languages and the various cultures that have made this country will all feel at home; a place where there is a part of them in this national symbol. But we want it also to be a democratic capital with its two systems of property and civil law, one on the Quebec side and one on the Ontario side; a capital with its two systems of education, and the multiplicity that is involved in the most complicated national capital that any nation in the modern world has attempted to create. The task, Mr. Speaker, is a very great task. I hope that the committee will be struck and that the terms of reference will be before it shortly. I hope too that hon. members will proceed and a report will follow which will be of great assistance to the government and the new chairman for setting the policy for the years ahead.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, even though the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott) and the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) may have some matters on which they do not agree, they are in agreement on what is being asked for, both in this motion and in the motion in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa
National Capital Commission
West, although that one is not before us today. In both cases they are seeking some democratization of the operations of the National Capital Commission. That is a position, Mr. Speaker, that I think should be fully supported by this House.
I was glad to hear the hon. member for Ottawa West say a few things which make it clear that he realizes, even though he is an Ottawa resident, that there is a sense in which this area belongs to Canada. It is the nation's capital. It is appropriate that the people of Canada through their parliament and their government should have something to say about what goes on in the planning of this general area. As I say, no one quarrels with that. But from that position the National Capital Commission seems to have evolved in a way which, as both previous speakers have pointed out, includes no elected members and operates on its own self-created mandate. I believe that point has been made today by the two members from Ottawa who have already spoken and who deserve our full support. I hope they will stick with it, and that other members from the Ottawa area as well as some of us who have spent quite a few years in the Ottawa area will also continue to do so.
Having said that, I have no desire to prevent others from speaking or to contribute to the talking out of this motion; I would like to see it carried. I realize there is a problem of whether we want a special committee or a standing committee, that some negotiations may have to take place, but I hope the opinion of the House this afternoon will be clearly in favour, as I say, of the democratization of the running of the National Capital Commission.
While I am on my feet, may I say that I know there is hardly anybody in the House who does not know what is on my mind, but I want to say again that I greatly deplore the lack of planning that has resulted in this cluster of high rise structures in one part of this city. I have often spoken about this from the point of view of one who lives a few miles away and can still see the Peace Tower from my bedroom window out on Com-manche Drive. Woe betide the developer who happens to put a highrise building between me and the Peace Tower!
I have spoken about this from the viewpoint of those who are on the ground. There are areas in many parts of the city where one used to be able to see the Peace Tower when driving around, but now in most areas it is blocked out. A couple of times lately when flying in and out of the city I have had a particularly good view of the place. Usually my flights in and out of the city are over Parkwood Hills and Kanata and on we go; we come in on that same runway time and time again. But a couple of times lately on clear days the plane has circled around to the east and we have been able to see the whole of the city at once. It hits me between the eyes when I look down and see those clusters of highrise buildings all in one place. They should at least have been spread out. Some are in the suburbs but most are right in the centre of the city, and unfortunately, it is creating a core which is an eyesore and which does not make any sense. Indeed, from the air one can hardly see the Peace Tower, because of all the other high structures. I think it is contrary to the whole idea expressed by the hon. member for Ottawa West that this is the nation's

January 30, 1978
National Capital Commission
capital. This being the nation's capital, I think this building and its Peace Tower have a symbolism which is very important, and I am sorry that that symbolism and that view have to a large extent been blotted out. You cannot ask anyone to tear down these tall buildings, but I hope there will be some better planning of this city in the years that lie ahead.
Towards that end, I support the whole idea that the planning of this area should be done in a democratic way. Therefore, I commend the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton for the motion she has brought before the House this afternoon.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I take part in this debate on motion No. 17 presented by the member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott). It does seem that this motion is excellent but it is twofold. The first part is a critic addressed to the National Capital Commission and concerns its actions since its inception. That is the negative part of it. The other part is rather constructive. It states that a permanent joint committee should be constituted.
First of all, let me say that I do not favour the creation of a permanent joint committee but rather that of a permanent committee of the House of Commons which, when parliament is in session, would study the complaints and concerns of the various groups and municipalities in the national capital region. I think there is something like it in Washington which is called the District of Columbia committee made out of representatives from the Congress who, every year, study the problems facing the District of Columbia, be it concerning estimates or other matters. In my opinion this is an excellent idea.
What we should recall is that we must always take into account the history of the National Capital Commission and the national capital region itself. I have heard the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) criticize the skyline which is now hiding the magnificent view of parliament but it all boils down to say that if we had listened to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, we would have today some kind of a federal district and this would never have happened.
If we have high-rise buildings hiding Parliament Hill from just about everywhere-and the same kind of planning, the same type of design took place on the Quebec side-it is precisely because there have been quarrels among politicians while the National Capital Commission or the Federal District Commission as it was called then, opposed the construction of these high-rise buildings. However, the Federal District Commission had no jurisdiction over the Ottawa city council nor dit it have any such authority over the municipalities in the national capital region. And if we study the act which governs the National Capital Commission, we realize that it is not vested with any power.
If we now have problems with the National Capital Commission, it is because, like my colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) has already said, there have been many changes and extraordinary evolution in the national

capital area. Before there were no regional communities on either side of the river. There were simply municipalities which could not afford urban planners. In fact, urban planners were rare at that time and municipal authorities used to borrow the services of National Capital Commission urban planners to develop rural municipalities and cities within the national capital area.
But this has changed. Nowadays nearly all cities hire urban planners. They have consultants. Urban planners are like economists: Half will say that such and such a project is good for a certain area and the other half will say that it is unpractical. It is somewhat like writers who can write very good novels but whose stories would seem ridiculous if they were applied to reality. They are nice stories, but they could not happen in practice. It is the people who have spoiled the structures of the National Capital Commission, and it did have weaknesses in the past. In my opinion, it no longer has.
It has had certain inherent human weaknesses because its destiny is controlled by human beings and its mandate comes from the government. I hear the opposition critics say: Oh, those are political appointments. Whether it be the Liberal or the Progressive Conservative government, I am sure that the Conservative government made certain appointments around 1958; I am not sure, but I have the impression that it did. But in the present case, the case of Mr. Drury, who has been appointed chairman of the commission, I am sure he will do an excellent job. When he takes over his office, I am sure that his first request will not be for a map of the region to see where he is, and this, at least, is something. He has been living in the area for 30 years. He served as Minister of Public Works, and we know what the NCC owes him during that term, since at the time the Commission came under Public Works.
So we had several chairmen, and since then evolution followed its normal course. We did not use to hear about the NCC. In the Ottawa-Hull area, people used to phone their members of parliament to ask when the NCC would be expropriating them, and that was going on on both sides. Everybody was waiting to be expropriated. There were not that many expropriations, but let us say that everybody waited for the NCC before selling their house and property which often were not worth anything. And I think that the NCC has changed. At that time, we did not use to hear about it because, as I said earlier, the professional services of the NCC were used on both sides, so we did not use to hear about it, and it was a good thing at the time. But today this has degenerated into conflicts of interest between experts, and I think that experts are not worth anything. They are good once in a while when a war breaks out in order to know whether the cannon is going to fire left or right, because a cannon that fires to the left when it is aimed at right is no good. That is all right. And, besides, they are ideologists, people who try to put down on paper things that do not make sense.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Big payrolls.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: You are right. We had NCC chairmen who were exceptional, and we can name them. Mr. Fullerton is one
January 30, 1978

of them, for example. Mr. Fullerton prepared an explosive report that upset some people. He actually told how things really were in the national capital area which is overgoverned and overtaxed. So, Mr. Fullerton made a report and, naturally, it caused confusion among the mayors and the elected representatives within the national capital area. Then there was that poor Mr. Gallant who was an excellent chairman, but he had to pick up the pieces because people were not talking to one another on either side.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: He became gallant.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: He became gallant. With time he turned out to be a good diplomat, he patched things up and became an excellent mediator. And then Mr. Juneau "arrived" while the National Capital Commission was going through an adjustment process with all the changes that had occurred in the region. At first Mr. Juneau was not accepted by representatives of different municipal bodies from either side but in the end everybody deplored his departure. But everyone knows, Mr. Speaker, that as soon as someone leaves, he is offered congratulations and all sorts of good things, even from his opponents. But he had gained the confidence of the public.
Now we have a new chairman and I am sure he will render exceptional services to the population and more particularly to the national capital region. He will do so because the leaders of this region should understand that if we are part of the national capital region, we should depoliticize our problems. I believe we should try a formula to reflect in the national capital area the best of Canada's beauty and greatness. It must be the nation's focus and soul. Certainly this cannot be done amidst dissension or it cannot be built on bickering, or great walls of China. It can only be done in a spirit of co-operation.
Mr. Speaker, speaking of co-operation the thing that struck me most in Washington were the various frameworks ruling the District of Columbia. But before discussing that I must say it would be a great thing if all members of the National Capital commission were elected. Unfortunately there can be no agreement at the municipal government level, nor at the regional community level, so how can there be agreement when they are part of two different entities? Each time provincial governments come here, people from the area catch cold or pneumonia, and the impact is on the NCC. Every time Toronto says to do something Ottawa complies, and every time Quebec says something, Hull follows. How then can there be co-operation? This is a total mess!
If on the other hand we had elected people, people representing Canada as a whole, because in this way is the National Capital Commission formed, if we had a chairman nominated not on account of political allegiance, not because the government is Liberal, but chosen among senators, judges, Progressive Conservatives because of his qualifications, as was done in the past without any outcry.
So let me come back to my experience in the District of Columbia. It might be a good thing if elective representatives in the area pressed reeves to group themselves into in a council of governments as was done in the District of Columbia. This
National Capital Commission
is an assembly comprised of representatives of all groups within the District of Columbia. Those elective representatives meet in general assembly to elect a ten-man executive. Members of that executive group neither govern nor control, because they have no power other than persuasion. Whenever there are differences among governments on a given project, those members go back and forth between governments to convince them it is in the region's greater interest. It is something in the nature of a guiding light or a life buoy.
In my view, the various municipal councils in the area should meet along those lines, they should create an executive to do some lobbying with the various levels of government, for the good administration of the national capital area. For example, we have the convention centre. The battle is on. Will Hull have it, will Ottawa have it, who knows? Everybody is lobbying. It should not be that way. If economic development is what we want for this region, we should decide and say: this time you will have it, next time it will be our turn, all in order to spur the economy and create economic benefits for the entire region.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, we should not let this become a political sounding board, and I think the National Capital Commission has played a vital role in that matter. Of course, the committee will make recommendations, and I am sure that in view of the developments of the last 15 years, the government will not lend a deaf ear, and will do what it has to do to keep in step and give the national capital the best of all possible governments. I am not sure that if we had gone along with the idea of a federal district we would not know all the problems we find ourselves enmeshed in today. Regardless of political allegiances, we should all work in the same direction, in order to create an image, a crystallisation of all the aspirations described by politicians and prime ministers on the topic of a capital of a country, a nation, Ottawa. That is why I think we failed for not doing it, and that is why we find ourselves a bit short-handed today, trying to patch up that which was excellent in the beginning, but which was unfortunately left to stagnate for the past 50 years.
Mr. Speaker, those are the few comments I wanted to make on this motion, and as I said at the outset, this is a two part motion, one being critical, negative and political, the other being constructive, except that I would not want to see the Senate sit on this committee, but rather a committee of the House which would review the funds, complaints, and studies, and which would hear the citizens at least once a year.


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: It is with considerable pride that I take part in the debate on the motion before us this afternoon. This is my first opportunity to speak as parliamentary secretary on the subject of the National Capital Commission. I want to begin by congratulating all the previous speakers. They spoke eloquently and well. I suspect one of the

January 30, 1978
Air Canada
reasons they spoke so well was their pride in what we often refer to as the nation's capital.
We have heard some criticism of the fact that there will be no elected federal members of the commission, but it should be borne in mind that this is the national capital and that there is adequate representation on the commission of the provinces and of the territories.
With respect to the motion put forward by the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott) may I say that, though the hon. lady made some good points, I regret she should have taken a political approach by slamming the recent appointment of the former member for Westmount (Mr. Drury). I think we should give credit where it is due to a man who has distinguished himself throughout the years, serving his country with distinction both in time of war and subsequently in government. I would have thought hon. members would have done him the courtesy of at least allowing him to get his feet under the desk before beginning to criticize him. We did not criticize the hon. lady in advance when she was appointed opposition critic in this field. We thought we would wait and see what her approach would be. However, with respect to intergovernmental coordination the National Capital Commission is firmly committed to the fullest possible co-ordination and co-operation with other levels of government. This has been one of Mr. Pierre Juneau's highest priorities and my former colleague, Mr. Drury, has stated that he, too, will concentrate his efforts in this area.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret I have to interrupt the parliamentary secretary. It is six o'clock and 1 do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

is responsible to consider arranging the cancellation of the meeting tonight of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. Since this House is also debating a bill on transportation, a number of members are involved in both forums. Could the government House leader or someone tell us whether the committee meeting will be cancelled?
Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I expect that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) will be in the House shortly and will attempt to work out some accommodation to meet the point raised by the hon. member.


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Speaker, the hour is late for that kind of arrangement. I had discussions prior to six o'clock with various members and have been on the telephone for the last two hours but could not reach the people I wanted. That was not their fault. I wanted to speak on this bill tonight and refer to the amendments now before the House. I particularly wanted to comment on the remarks of my good friend the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), who spoke of total approval of the bill, which scares me a little. I also wanted to refer to what the minister said about relieving Air Canada of its special obligations. In fact, I wanted to comment on what this whole issue of competition in public transportation involves in Canada.
The Standing Committee on Transport and Communications is meeting tonight to consider the Aeronautics Act. We arranged for two witnesses to appear last week and again tonight, both of whom I understand are from Ottawa. I and other members of the House are involved in that matter as members of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. Since we cannot be in both places at once, and since the arrangement for the committee to meet was certainly prior to the calling of this bill for debate, I feel my place and the place of other hon. members is at the meeting of the standing committee. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will forgo the remarks I should like to make on this bill and I now move, seconded by the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth):
The House resumed at 8 p.m.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lang for the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-3, respecting the reorganization of Air Canada.
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I should like to ask the government House leader or the government whip or whoever

That this debate be now adjourned.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might rise on a point of order before the hon. member puts his motion. I know he is ready to put the motion, but if he would accept some accommodation perhaps we might have an opportunity to solve this problem. He has brought the matter forward in just the last few minutes, so perhaps he would give us a little time in which this problem might be resolved, rather than moving the adjournment of the debate which, at the moment, we would have to oppose.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: In reply to the point raised by the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform him that I was in discussion with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lapointe) prior to five o'clock, and I was informed shortly thereafter that the committee meeting would
January 30, 1978

not be cancelled. Since I have work to do both in that committee and here in respect of this bill I am at a loss as to what should be done next. I tried to phone both the chairman of the committee and the parliamentary secretary and succeeded in reaching the parliamentary secretary a few minutes before six. I informed him how I felt about this matter and suggested that I was left with no alternative, unless I was advised before this time that the committee meeting had been cancelled. If it has not been cancelled then I would ask that my motion be put.


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


Mr. Lapointe:: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order-


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is not debatable.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The motion is not debatable.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This is on the point of order.


Charles Lapointe: On the motion, Mr. Speaker-


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I recognize the parliamentary secretary on the point of order.
[ Translation]


Charles Lapointe: Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to correct the facts somewhat for my hon. colleagues who will have to vote on this motion. You will easily understand, Mr. Speaker, that it was not easy to anticipate early today how long the debate would last on Bill C-12 introduced by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie). Thus, it was also difficult to anticipate how much time the hon. members would take to debate the motion relating to the legislation amended by the Senate, that is the Air Canada legislation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, surely it is clear that this motion is not debatable.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The parliamentary secretary is on a point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but he said he was on a point of order and he is not. He is debating a motion that is not debatable.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Put the motion.


An hon. Member:: He is trying to get some information.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Would the parliamentary secretary indicate the nature of his point of order?


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I am merely trying to clarify the situation so that hon. members can vote advisedly on the
Air Canada
motion of the hon. member. Mr. Speaker, I believe that later in the day an attempt was made to cancel the meeting planned for the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications this evening. The witnesses from Toronto and Montreal were already in Ottawa and we were unable to reach them between 5.30 and 6.30.


An hon. Member:: He is just stalling.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: This is debate and he is out of order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if you are going to allow the parliamentary secretary-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I would like to listen to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lapointe).


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is not speaking to a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He is not on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: We have one point of order before the House at the present time and I am prepared to listen to the minister's parliamentary secretary.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: For how long?


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I was explaining that we tried in every possible way to reach the witnesses who are to appear this evening before the committee on transport and communications. Still, neither the committee chairman nor myself were able to do so and that is why we could not cancel the committee meeting this evening. I believe the hon. member who was supposed to speak when the sitting resumed tonight on the bill dealing with Air Canada could easily have done so in the 20 or 30 minutes allowed him; he could then have come to join us in committee and continued with the business at hand.


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


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I readily accept the upbraiding of the parliamentary secretary to the effect that we should have been here at 7.55 p.m. to express our views on Bill C-3. One cannot be everywhere at the same time. Before six o'clock, I told the parliamentary secretary that I had some comments to make on this bill. Mr. Speaker, if I am denied the right to speak for procedural reasons, I shall abide by your decision, but if I am still allowed to speak, I shall avail myself of that right, not to indulge in negative but rather in objective criticism. Mr. Speaker, with your permission, if I am allowed

January 30, 1978
Air Canada
to speak, I shall do so, but if you rule that I am not entitled to speak, I shall keep silent. The decision is yours.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The question is on the motion of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), seconded by the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth), that this debate be now adjourned. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: 
Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
(Division No. 19)
++YEAS
Messrs.
Alexander
Alkenbrack
Andre
(Calgary Centre) Baker
(Grenville-Carleton)
Benjamin
Brisco
Cadieu
Clark
(Rocky Mountain) Clarke
(Vancouver Quadra) Crouse Elzinga Epp Firth Friesen Gilbert Grafftey Hamilton
(Swift Current-
Maple Creek)
Hargrave Hnatyshyn Hogan Holmes Huntington Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) Knowles
(Norfolk-Haldimand)
Lambert
(Bellechasse)
La Salle Lawrence MacDonald (Miss) (Kingston and the Islands)
MacKay
Malone
Masniuk
Mazankowski
McKenzie
McKinley
Munro
(Esquimalt-Saanich)
Murta
Neil
Nielsen
Nystrom
Oberle
Orlikow
Paproski
Peters
Pigott (Mrs.)
Ritchie
Roche
Schellenberger
Scott
Smith
(Churchill)
Towers Wenman Whittaker Wise-53
[Stage Direction]

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, January 25, as recorded in Hansard at page 2232, I put this question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald):
In view of the increasing concern on the part of veterans across Canada over the refusal of the government to restore the basic rate of the war disability pension to the average take-home pay of the five categories of public servants designated in 1973, has the minister resubmitted this matter to the cabinet, asking for a reversal of the negative decision which he announced a couple of months ago?
The reply of the Minister of Veterans Affairs was in these words:
No, Mr. Speaker, I have not resubmitted this question, but I would like to remind the House that on January 1 there was an increase of 7.2 per cent in disability pensions across this country. As I stated previously, when the government sees things in a different light, I will bring this matter back to it.
January 30, 1978

In my supplementary question I pointed out that the 7.2 per cent increase which came into effect this month because of legislation that is on the statute books was something entirely different from the restoration of the basic rate to the formula agreed upon in 1973. It was this that I asked the minister to take back again to cabinet.
In my supplementary I also referred to the problem which still exists in that when a veteran dies having been on a pension of less than 48 per cent there is no automatic pension for his widow. I also pointed out that there is still no compensation available to veterans who were prisoners of war in the first world war. I underline the urgency of these two matters which I brought forward in my supplementary but tonight I shall speak mainly on the question of the basic rate.
I might say that the Minister of Veterans Affairs has expressed to me his regret that he could not be here tonight to give his personal reply to the question I am raising, and I assume the parliamentary secretary will be making the reply. I want to say to the parliamentary secretary that seldom will he be called upon to deal with a more important issue of principle than the one involved in this question. It is not just the standard request for more money.
There is a lot of history behind this. Before I was elected to this chamber, in fact shortly after the first world war, disability pensions were set up on the basis of 100 per cent disability being related to a certain level of pay in the civil service, as it was then called. But over the decades this standard got worn down so that by the time of the second world war the principle had been lost and disability pensions under the Pension Act were set arbitrarily. During the second world war we tried to get back to an acceptable formula and we kept trying in the years which followed. Finally, in 1973, after a tripartite committee and the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs had studied the question and made recommendations, the government agreed to set the 100 per cent disability rate at the level of the average take-home pay of five designated categories within the public service.
There was also the recommendation that this practice should be continued in perpetuity. The government did not accept this latter point of view but undertook to deal with that question later. It said: For the time being we will accept these figures for 1973 and increase pensions in succeeding years by the percentage by which the cost of living increases. That is what has happened since. The result is that a very wide gap has developed between the average pay of the federal public service in the five categories chosen and the amount of the 100 per cent disability pension.
What veterans are asking is good faith on the part of the government. They are asking that the principle fought for at the end of World War I and again at the end of World War II and finally won in 1973 be sustained. I plead with the parliamentary secretary not to say that the 7.2 per cent cost of living increase fills the bill. It does not. Veterans know what that does. It still leaves them behind the standard of living which
Adjournment Debate
can be attained by those who are able to work because they have not suffered war disability.
This is not just one more request by members of the opposition for more money to be spent here or there. We are asking for recognition of a principle which was sacred at the end of World War I, agreed upon at the end of World War II, and confirmed in 1973, a principle which is now being lost by the refusal of the government to restore the pension to the figure set by the 1973 formula.
My plea to the minister the other day was that he should take this matter back to cabinet despite the fact that he announced a few months ago that the answer was no. I hope the parliamentary secretary is in a position to assure us tonight that his minister recognizes the seriousness of this issue and that he will take the matter back to cabinet and seek a reversal of that negative decision during the present session of parliament.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, lest there be any question that the minister or myself believes that this is a very serious matter, I think it should be stated here categorically that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) has, since he has taken this post, always had the best interests of the veterans at heart.
As the hon. member knows, this question has been brought up repeatedly in this House. I am going to reiterate what has already been said about the 7.2 per cent increase which came about on January 1. However, one thing that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) did not mention was that the basic rate for an unmarried 100 per cent pensioner is now $596.70 per month. In the case of a married 100 per cent pensioner, the figure is $745.88 per month; and if he and his wife have two dependent children, his pension has been increased to $880.15 per month.
In so far as the pro rata pension to widows of pensioned veterans is concerned, there is nothing new to add since a statement was last made on this subject.
The suggestion has been made that a widow should receive a pro rata pension if her husband had been in receipt of a disability pension of 47 per cent or less. This is because she would be fully pensionable as a widow if his pension had been 48 per cent or more at the time of death. What is sometimes missed is that the widow will be pensioned if her husband's death occurred during wartime or was attributable to his service, regardless of the degree of the assessment of his disability.
The question which arises is whether, if death was not in any way attributable to military service, a widow's pension should be paid because of the service connection. We know and the hon. member knows-I say this in all sincerity-that the benefits provided to the disabled serviceman or woman, or to their surviving dependents, are far greater than those provided by most other countries. I am not aware of any of our major
80031 -9

January 30, 1978
Adjournment Debate
wartime allies who pay automatic survivor benefits to widows approaching the 48 per cent basis which we in Canada use.
With regard to providing pensions for first world war prisoners of war, the minister has stated and I repeat tonight, that this is under very active consideration and that a decision will be made shortly.
I have served with the hon. member for a number of years on the Standing Committee of Veterans Affairs. I would ask him if he would take those things which have been done into consideration. We hope that those things yet to be accomplished will come about very quickly.


PUBLIC SERVICE-ALLEGATION DEPARTMENT CIRCUMVENTING GROWTH GUIDELINES
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, tonight I am calling for the subject of contracting out in the civil service and the hiring through private employment agencies to be referred to a standing committee. I also ask that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) be asked to appear before that committee to explain government policy in regard to these hiring practices which completely contradict his statement of February 16, 1977, that public service growth would be restricted to 0.6 per cent.
Growth is growth and this method of hiring through the backdoor requires an explanation from the government. The Public Service Alliance has launched an all-out campaign against these two practices and it is quite obvious that there is a complete breakdown in communication and consultation between the government and the alliance. It has almost reached the stage of open warfare.
To add to the complete confusion, private employment agencies claim there is a threat to their future. The minister should not only explain to the committee why all this extra growth is needed but why the government is not using the services of Canada Manpower when extra help is needed, especially when there are one million unemployed Canadians.
I should like to read into the record some of the concerns of the Public Service Alliance which are expressed in their publication, the Argus Journal. It is no wonder we have no morale in the public service. The alliance should also be allowed to appear before the committee to present its side of the story.
In one of the latest publications the alliance has printed a questionnaire for distribution to the membership. It is entitled "The Great Government Cover-up". The alliance urges its members to answer the questionnaire as fully as possible.
The concern is shown in another article headed "Contracting out: the Great Government Cover-Up", which states in part:
Contracting out is expensive: the government claims it is keeping down annual increases in the size of the public service while at the same time expanding work done for the government by private firms.
There is little or no control over the quality of or accountability for work done by private contractors.

Contracting out leaves politicians open to the temptation to give contracts to "friends" who might be supporters in past or future election campaigns.
There is even danger that some sections of government departments might disappear because of the increasing trend to contracting out.
Some firms that hold government contracts exploit their employees.
Another article states under the heading "Members' jobs are on the line as contracting out increases":
The loss of government jobs is a crucial issue but there is more to it than that. The PSAC has opposed contracting out for more reasons than job security.
First, it is dishonest. The government says it is limiting the growth of the public service; in fact it is using contracting out to cover up an expansion of service growth. While limiting public service spending, the government is increasing costly professional and special contractual services.
Another article is headed "New guidelines no solution" and states in part:
The government has drawn up new guidelines on the use by departments of temporary help in the administrative support category in the National Capital Region. But PSAC President Andy Stewart points out that the guidelines don't go far enough to eliminate the profit being raked off by middlemen. In Ottawa-Hull alone, he estimates, there are now more than 2,000 people in government offices who are supplied by personnel agencies.
The article goes on to state:
However, Brother Stewart says the only acceptable solution would be to do away entirely with temporary help employees.
"As an alternative, the Public Services Commission should establish a pool of qualified public service employees to draw on for temporary help. In this way the total payment for services would accrue to the employees themselves."
These alternatives should be fully discussed by a parliamentary committee.
I would also like to refer to a letter to the editor of the Winnipeg Tribune written by a MOT safety inspector. He states in part:
My colleagues and I service, maintain and certify all the complex communications, navigational aids, radar and electronics control equipment... To attempt to contract out to inexperienced, untrained, incapable maintenance personnel, the absolute requirement of high quality and availability of electronic services to everyone who flies in Canadian air space is a flagrant disregard for the SAFETY of anyone who flies.
To falsely claim to be saving the taxpayer money while at the same time heedlessly compromising your SAFETY and mine represents at the very least, a conscious criminal act.
In light of these serious charges and this continuing battle between the government and the civil service, I am sure the parliamentary secretary will say there is no alternative but to bring this whole subject matter out in the open by having it fully discussed before a parliamentary committee.


Mr. Thomas H. Lefebvre (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, it is recognized that the use of temporary help company employees has been increasing over the last few years. Consequently the Treasury Board has recently approved and issued a policy statement and guidelines on the appropriate use of such services in the administrative support category in the national capital region. Under the guidelines, agency employees are to be used only where an unexpected vacancy or workload increase occurs without sufficient notice to carry out normal staffing action. Arrangements for temporary help will be limited to eight weeks' duration. In order to provide a measure
January 30, 1978

of control over the qualifications of personnel supplied through the agencies, and over rates paid, DSS will become the sole contracting authority for such services on April 1 of this year.
In order to provide a measure of control, the Department of Supply and Services will be the only government department with authority in these matters. In addition, departments are also being asked to maintain adequate records on the utilization of such services and to ensure that personnel provided meet the qualification standards specified in the contracts. At the end of one year these operations under the new system will be evaluated by the Treasury Board secretariat. It will evaluate the effectiveness of this policy and guidelines by utilizing departmental records and data supplied by the Department of Supply and Services. Changes have been made, and further attempts are being made to control this.
Further, it will be ensured that where possible public servants are replaced by other public servants through such actions as redeployment of existing resources, and use of transfers, acting appointments or specified period appointments, as appropriate, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Service Employment Act. Where there is temporary administrative work to be done for which no man-year or salary provisions were made, as far as possible such work will be done by existing departmental or program resources through the rearrangement of priorities and temporary reassignment of tasks to personnel. Where it is not feasible, temporary help company employees may be engaged. However, to avoid any duplication or any potential conflict with the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Employment Act appointment criteria, they should not be engaged for periods in excess of eight weeks.
The Department of Supply and Services will become the sole contracting authority for temporary help services in the administrative support category as of April 1, 1978. Commencing April 1, 1978, departments and agencies will be asked to obtain temporary help services directly from those companies with which the Department of Supply and Services has entered standing offer agreements.
There is no doubt that the government shares the concern of the hon. member. Attempts are being made to make arrangements so that the best and most efficient use can be made of the public service in Canada.


AGRICULTURE-FOOD POLICY CONFERENCE-PROPOSALS OF GOVERNMENT
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, it is becoming very apparent that the government's food policy has become the joke of the agricultural industry. At the present time everyone is skeptical of three ministers: the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand), and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner).
Adjournment Debate
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has been the most conspicuous to date in putting his foot in his mouth. It appears that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs wants a cheap food policy. Last week during a press conference in Winnipeg he said that he was looking at a possible ceiling on food prices, reduction of import duties and other controls on domestic prices, export embargoes, selective consumer subsidies, possible two-price systems to set different prices for domestic and export consumption, stiffer supervision of food processors and distributors, a study of some of their most basic activities and their information system, and he would attempt to explain food price changes to consumers. That statement is enough to send everyone running for cover.
Amid all the speeches and meetings, what is really happening? Do we really need a national food policy when the proportion of personal incomes spent on food is probably the lowest in the world; when domestic production of many food items is at a permanent cost disadvantage; when domestic production of some important commodities is already declining; and when massive imports are worsening the balance of payments problems, which is a major threat to the national economy?
Obviously the answer must be no, we do not require a national food policy. In 1976 Canadians spent an average of 13.6 per cent of their disposable incomes on food eaten at home, compared to 14.8 per cent in 1971 and 19.5 per cent between 1951 and 1955. I believe that a food policy put forward by Trudeau Liberals means a cheap food policy.
The farmers will once again be caught in a government controlled vice with bureaucrats and government planners trying to squeeze every last cent out of the producer. A cheap food policy, if allowed to develop in the manner talked about by the minister's colleagues, would, in my opinion, virtually destroy the horticultural industry in Canada as well as major sectors of the beef and pork industries.
This program, the propaganda associated with it and also the February conference, are all being brought forward as political gimmicks designed for the 1978 election. The government is trying to please everyone, and of course that is impossible. To consumers it appears that a positive move is being made toward a food policy; but the unsuspecting producer will be made to feel that his interests are being looked after. Both these observations are incorrect. The government has no policy on anything except to re-elect itself. It will destroy and divide to do just that, and apparently that is what is coming out of the national food policy.
By agreeing to a national food policy, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has directed Canadian farmers to an uncertain and unknown future. I believe that we have a minister who is forced to go along with his cabinet colleagues, partly to save face because there is no coherent agricultural policy in this country, and partly from political expediency because the government anticipates an election, possibly this
80031 -9>/j

January 30, 1978
Adjournment Debate
spring. Policies for agriculture and food should not be devised in this haphazard manner.


Mr. Yves Caron (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to answer and supplement a reply given by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) on January 27, 1978 to a question by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta).
Perhaps the hon. member is not aware of the purpose of the Food Strategy Conference. It is not to dictate a food policy but to improve the procedures of communication, consultation and understanding for those who have a vital interest in the agricultural food system, either as consumers, producers, manufacturers, retailers or restaurateurs as well as dealers in the agriculture and food area.
We also want their opinions and recommendations for the implementation, the improvement as well as the continuity of a Canadian food strategy.
The government will spell out everything that has been accomplished and the directions we have already taken for a Canadian food strategy but I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that we did not decide to call this conference to dictate government ideas
but to exchange and receive the opinions of producers, consumers and people in the agricultural food industry in general.
The proposed consultations we undertook were aimed at a food strategy reached in three steps: the meetings between a committee of federal ministers and nine national organizations last December, the federal-provincial conference held in Winnipeg on January 16 and now the National Food Strategy Conference to be held on February 22 and 23, 1978. That conference will have the participation of over 150 organizations, and if I may be more specific, has already generated a lot of enthusiasm and support from various agricultural food organizations.
The food strategy is an aggressive concept to help improve the food policy now in effect in Canada.
The food system is important and complex and has very large significance for the economic life in this country. We are aggressively seeking as a department the assistance and active support of all Canadians with an interest in the food business.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.45 p.m.

Tuesday, January 31, 1978