1978-05-15

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of substantial public urgency and concern. In light of the unacceptable position in which the Ministry of Transport finds itself with respect to the crash of a Pacific Western Airlines' jet at Cranbrook, British Columbia, on February 11, which claimed 43 lives, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco):
That this House direct the Minister of Transport to appoint forthwith a member of a senior court of competent jurisdiction to inquire into the relevant facts surrounding this tragedy, and further direct the minister to introduce legislation establishing an independent commission of inquiry for all transport-related accidents in Canada.
This would avoid in future tragic conflicts of interest such as have occurred in this case.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDEPENDENT BOARD TO INVESTIGATE AIRPLANE CRASHES- MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: On the same topic, Mr. Speaker, I should like to move, as a matter of urgency and public importance, a similar motion under the terms of Standing Order 43. In view of the February 11 crash of the PWA jet at Cranbrook airport in which 43 people were killed, the refusal of Ministry of Transport officials to provide the coroner with an unabridged transcript of radio conversations surrounding the tragedy, and in view of the conflict of interest in which the department finds itself by being involved in the
crash while at the same time investigating it, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That this House instruct the Minister of Transport to establish an independent board to investigate and report on airplane crashes.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
Considering the dilemma in which the Canadian government finds itself as a result of problems created by federal intervention in a strictly provincial jurisdiction, such as the retail sales tax; and considering that the federal proposal aimed at increasing the purchasing power of consumers through a reduction of the retail sales tax has given rise to many problems, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the House urge the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) to introduce a bill granting a 10 per cent discount on Canadian-made products to increase the purchasing power of Canadians without creating conflicts with provincial governments.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Presentation of such a motion for debate under Standing Order 43 would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

May 15, 1978


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Despite the fact that Canada is one of the world leaders in food production, there would be a substantial trade deficit in agricultural commodities if it were not for our export sales of wheat. This indicates that our attempts to increase export sales of other agricultural products have been less than satisfactory. Accordingly, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave):
That the Minister of Agriculture take immediate steps to establish a Canadian export council to assist marketing boards, producers associations and others so as to increase our export contracts, utilize more fully all potential avenues of offshore market expansion, seek out increased opportunities for Canadian producers and develop more aggressive salesmanship and initiative in seeking markets than has been the case up to now.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 concerning a matter of pressing and urgent necessity.
Since it is rumoured that the federal government intends to introduce legislation to be able to pay a tax subsidy directly to Quebec taxpayers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the House instruct the government to recognize for once its mistake on the sales tax cut issue, and grant the Quebec government the total amount to which it is entitled for its selective sales tax reductions.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on an urgent matter of public importance. Shipment of CIDA grain from Canada is controlled by the Canadian Wheat Board. The port of Churchill is not being used to its handling capacity. I would, therefore, move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
That the government direct the Canadian Wheat Board to ship five million bushels of CIDA grain through the port of Churchill this season to help relieve the tie-up of grain shipped through Vancouver and Prince Rupert.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion, under the terms of Standing Order 43, can be put forward only by unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of the fact that the final recommendations on the Garrison diversion unit of the International Joint Commission has been in the hands of the government for some six months, and view of the fact that the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) has not yet studied the United States new proposal, the Andras plan, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
That both the IJC report and the Andras plan be immediately referred to the appropriate Standing Committee for study by all members of the House.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
May 15, 1978



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport who is in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Because the Canadian Wheat Board has now confirmed there will be a 350 million bushel carryover at the end of the current crop year, which is in the order of 200 million bushels in excess of what could be considered an ideal target, there will be a negative impact on the economy of approximately $800 million.
Given the fact that the board is now some 35 million bushels behind in its shipping targets, that demurrage costs are likely to exceed the $17 million which was accumulated in 1973, that there are now some 20 ships waiting in the port of Vancouver and our best customers are going to the United States for grain, may I ask the minister what new initiatives he is taking or contemplating to correct this disgraceful situation which has not only an impact upon the economy but, more importantly, an impact upon Canada's reliability as a supplier of grain in the international market?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, to put the matter into perspective, it should be pointed out that exports this year may well total in the order of 850 million bushels of grain which, if that happens, will be an all-time record. That can only be accomplished by shipping and disposing of all the 1977 crop, plus perhaps as much as 100 million or 150 million bushels out of the reserves so that our stocks at the end of the year will be significantly lower than they were last year and not particularly high from a long-term point of view. I think that is a necessary perspective to recognize.
When there is such a record volume for shipment, naturally there will be ships waiting more frequently even when things are going well. When things go a little badly, as they did with delays in ships arriving in December and then, just as we were trying to catch up, the problems of heavy snows and the problems with the rail lines of CP particularly, we are going to get behind. There is no doubt about that. It is part of setting a record. What is being done about it is that the railways are being urged to put as many cars as possible into the movement of grain and to do everything they can to get the turnaround which will allow the number of unloads to increase. We are still not completely happy with the performance and are working on it regularly.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Since it is quite clear that Canada will not meet its maximum potential in terms of grain sales this year as a result of the bottlenecks, can I ask the minister if he has met with the officials of the Canadian Wheat Board, the railways and all parties concerned with the movement of grain in the last week or ten days in an
Oral Questions
effort to establish an all-out strategy and an all-out effort to ease the bottlenecks, to unplug the elevators and to get some needed cash into the hands of farmers and thereby into the hands of the economy?


Otto Emil Lang: Again, Mr. Speaker, the fact that we are apt to be exporting a record volume of grain puts the lie somewhat to the suggestion that deliveries are slow or that farmers are not able to move grain. They will be delivering more grain than they have ever delivered before, I believe, by the time this crop year is over. I am constantly in touch with the Canadian Wheat Board. I met with the commissioners again this morning, as a matter of fact, and I am prepared to do anything they think is necessary on my part to assist them in their efforts to get maximum performance from the railways. I do from time to time intervene to try to make sure that everything that can be done is being done.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious from the answer of the minister that no new initiatives are being taken and no leadership is being provided by this government. Given the fact that we have before us a very important and relevant document, the Hall report on grain handling and transportation, and since there seems to be a major conflict between the author, Mr. Justice Emmett Hall, and the Minister of Transport in terms of the recommendations of the Hall report, the speed at which some of these recommendations are being implemented, the refusal of the government to implement others, and the total impact of the Hall recommendation, might I ask the minister whether he will give serious consideration to referring this important document to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications in order that we may call Mr. Justice Hall before the committee and other interested parties who may wish to comment upon the recommendations or the impact of the implementation of these recommendations ?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, in the process of implementing these various recommendations in the Hall commission report, which we have acted upon with great speed, I have had constant discussions with the really important agricultural organizations of the prairies, and generally speaking there has been expressed agreement with the way in which we are proceeding.
The hon. member wants me to consider a committee of parliament which obviously would simply be a partisan occasion, which is demonstrated by the fact that in asking his question he says, "What are we doing about this problem? What are we doing about moving grain," and ignores the fact that we have spent $255 million in building 8,000 hopper cars which are vital to the grain movement, ignores the fact that we put $100 million of new money into rebuilding the rail lines on the prairies, and have committed ourselves to an eight-year program to complete the rebuilding of those lines. How he can
5402

May 15, 1978
Oral Questions
sit there, with his partisan attitude, and say there is no action on my part, I do not understand.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CORRESPONDENCE WITH ALBERTA ON GRAIN MARKETING STRATEGY
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. It relates to the tabling of Premier Lougheed's correspondence with the Prime Minister dealing with Canadian grain marketing strategy, including an overdependence on China for grain sales, the lack of a long-term agreeement with the Soviet Union and changing conditions in Southeast Asia. In view of the fact that Alberta produces over one-third of Canada's grain, will the minister explain why the premier's request that the Wheat Board provide private quarterly reports to concerned premiers in Canada was so peremptorily turned down?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the question is really, what kind of information does Premier Lougheed want that is not available to him? If he would be specific about it, we would be glad then to analyse whether or not we should give it to him. He has, of course, among his advisers some who would destroy the Wheat Board. I think this is reflected in this kind of correspondence.
In the letter, Premier Lougheed, as quoted by the hon. member, indicated an overdependence on the Chinese market. The fact of the matter is that this year we will be depending to about the 22 per cent or 23 per cent degree on the Chinese market, which is very close to the percentage ever since 1961-1962, when it was 22 per cent. The only difference is that when it was 22 per cent, that year it represented about half the grain involved this year, when it is 22 per cent, because we are exporting so much. The fact, also, is that the only danger to the Russian market that we suffered was when Premier Lougheed was visiting there and made some very serious tactical errors which the Wheat Board has been able to overcome. Those are the facts.


An hon. Member:: Not so.


Otto Emil Lang: It is fact.


FINANCE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Considering that it is the unanimous decision of all political parties in the province of Quebec that the federal government should reimburse that province for its losses under the federal govern-

ment's selective sales tax reduction proposal, and considering that such special consideration for Quebec would be fully consistent in principle with the other special arrangements which were made for the Atlantic provinces, can the Minister of Finance inform the House why the government has now made the incredible decision to bring in additional federal legislation which would enable it to make direct financial transfers to the citizens of Quebec over the duly elected government of that province?
[ Translation]


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, when we introduced certain special considerations into the proposal relating to the sales tax in the maritimes, all provinces had previously given their assent, including Quebec. All 1 propose to do today is to abide by the proposal we have made to Quebec by paying that province what it is entitled to, that is $40 million. As for the rest, we as the federal government are going to reduce the federal income tax for all Quebec taxpayers.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Liberal party in the province of Quebec, Mr. Ryan, with reference to the federal government's decision to make direct tax cuts to the people of Quebec, in clear contravention of the expressed desires of the government of that province in principle, and in contravention of all the other arrangements which were made with the other provinces, said:
It means that whenever the federal government makes any kind of offer to a province and when the province refuses it for reasons of its own, the federal government retaliates by handing the money over to the people.
I would like to ask the Minister of Finance, in all seriousness, would he acknowledge that when the federal government goes in clear contravention of the expressed desires of a provincial government which is acting within its constitutional domain and unless it gets agreement it is going to give money directly to the taxpayers of that province, that really such an attitude is a form of blackmail and, as such, is totally unacceptable?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that there have been circumstances in the past where the Canadian government has vacated a fiscal field in order to try to accommodate some provinces. What we are doing at this time, since we could not reach an agreement with the Quebec government as we were able to with all the other provinces of the land is that we have decided to conform to the proposition and pay to the province of Quebec what we have agreed to pay to them, and for the rest use federal tax money that will be paid back to the federal taxpayers in Quebec.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, considering that the federal government's proposal makes special arrangments for all the provinces in Atlantic Canada and makes another set of arrangements for the prairie provinces, which had certain circumstances that they wanted special consideration for and considering that the government in fact realized its obligation
May 15, 1978

to negotiate in areas of constitutional concern and direct responsibility to the provinces with those provinces, could the minister explain to the House why, in the case of Quebec, he flies in opposition not only of the government of that province but all the opposition parties in the province, all the opposition parties in this House and the elected provincial governments of every province? In fact, is he not contributing to the disunity of Canada by the absurd position he has taken?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the best way to speak about unity in this country would be to acknowledge that it was the first time in the history of this country that the Minister of Finance took the liberty of going to the provincial ministers of finance to discuss his budget before presenting it.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: And you botched it.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I did it, and I presented a proposition. After the decision of the Quebec government 1 consulted all the provinces and some, unfortunately, are not in agreement with what I am doing today. 1 have talked to all the ministers of finance and most of them, indeed all of them, would have preferred Quebec to have accepted my original proposal. It would have been the best way to have a united economic policy developed by all ministers of finance and the federal Minister of Finance for the first time in history.
Quebec decided to go its own way, however, trying to divide the Canadian market. I could not make the same offer to the other provinces because I know they would have been quite willing themselves to choose the selective route. Ontario could have decided to go that way on the automobile industry, which would have been good in the hon. member's riding but it would not have been acceptable to the other provinces. That is why I am living up to the offer I made and compensating the federal taxpayers in Quebec for the money they do not get through the provincial government.
[ Translation]


PAYMENT TO QUEBEC FOR SELECTIVE SALES TAX REDUCTIONS
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Finance.
Since he seems to accuse the Quebec minister of finance of not doing justice to Quebeckers, how can he pretend to do justice to them when he intends to refund the amount to Quebeckers by way of a tax repayment or compensation and only to those who pay income tax to the federal government? How will the other Quebeckers get their share of this repayment?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, when it was suggested that repayments be made directly to individual taxpayers, one of the hon. members in the hon. member's party objected because in his opinion we were trying to buy votes.
Oral Questions
Here is what we are going to do in the circumstances: to those Quebec residents who pay federal income tax every year we will repay the amount the Quebec government did not want in order to reduce by 2 per cent during six months the other items not covered by the sales tax.


FISHERIES
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries, who was on the west coast over the weekend and knows some of the problems we face there and the difficulties of implementing the interim agreement.
According to press reports, the minister agreed to closure of the Swiftsure fishing grounds to Canadians in order to gain some concessions from the United States. I wonder whether he could say if this closure applies to Canadians and the Americans, and what concessions he hoped to get from the United States on this particular occasion?


Hon. Rom6o LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the closure is for Canadian and American fishermen. I do not know where the word "concession" came from. The fact is that the possibility of the closure of Swiftsure was contained in negotiations as a conservation measure. We do not happen to agree on the need for the conservation measure, but it was recognized that it could be requested.
On the other hand, we have informed the United States authorities that we fully expect them to implement the terms of the agreement, including Canadian access for salmon trolling from three to twelve miles off the coast of Washington state and allowing Canadian salmon fishermen to have 26-inch salmon aboard. The American negotiator who was informed of this will obviously talk to his government, and we expect a meeting on the twenty-fourth or the twenty-sixth of this month.


Donald W. Munro: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister has not said whether concessions were made on the east coast as well. Since the Prime Minister claims to be on such good personal terms with President Carter, why is it necessary for us to get down on our knees and plead and make concessions to the United States when there was, according to the Prime Minister's own words, an agreement that they would see this was implemented?


Mr. LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the hon. member has been reading some of the press from the west coast which for the last four years has used words like "sell-out" at a time when we have, in fact, negotiated so toughly. We have not been able to reach a permanent agreement and that is why we refused to give in on some fundamental issues where we think Canadian interests should
80038-52)4

Oral Questions
not be bargained with. I am afraid the second part of the hon. member's question escaped me.


Donald W. Munro: The east coast.


Roméo LeBlanc: On the east coast there is no question of a concession. We indicated to the United States representatives that we were not satisfied with the way the agreement was being carried out on the east coast and we asked them to come back with clarification.


REASON FOR DELAY IN TAKING POSITION ON U.S. ACCESS TO CANADIAN WATERS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: 
PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS DELEGATES
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before proceeding with the balance of the question period, may I ask hon. members to join with me in signalling the presence in our galleries of some very distinguished visitors, a delegation representing the veterans. This delegation comes from Yugoslavia and from Europe and it is headed by the vice-president of the Veterans of Yugoslavia, Mr. A. Milovanovic, and the vice-president of the European Committee of the World Veterans Federation, Mr. Banko Golovic.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PREMIER OF TASMANIA, AUSTRALIA
Mr. Speaker:: Also in our gallery today is a distinguished visitor in the person of the Premier of the State of Tasmania, Australia, the Hon. D. A. Lowe.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Following the Boeing-737 crash at Cranbrook airport where the presence of a vehicle on the runway contributed substantially to the crash, can the minister indicate whether it is true that there have been four other reported incidents of vehicles on runways across Canada, including another incident of a vehicle on the runway at Cranbrook airport within two months of that crash?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, no, I cannot confirm that but I will be glad to see whether any such information is available.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that the crash at Cranbrook will probably result in claims costing millions of dollars, and that a similar incident at the same airport will probably be classified as gross negligence and result in claims amounting to billions of dollars, is the minister prepared, in light of the report that there was another vehicle on the runway at Cranbrook during an aircraft approach, to order an immediate inquiry into the ground-to-ground and ground-to-air control being implemented at the present time at Cranbrook airport in order to protect the lives of air crews and passengers?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we are at all times examining the question of what type of facility should be available at various airports. That particular question has been undergoing special examination itself. I expect to have some further analysis of the type of airports and the timing when air traffic control should be introduced. It is fair to say that it is an expensive matter, of course, and therefore has to be weighed against other matters which are required across our total air navigation system, including such things as increases in navigational aids and the like.
I can assure the hon. member that we are very concerned in having and maintaining the high level of safety we have in Canada. We are continually watching to see whether these improvements should be made.


REQUEST FOR INQUIRY INTO PWA CRASH AT CRANBROOK, B.C.
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Given the controversy surrounding the pro-
May 15, 1978

ceedings of the coroner's inquiry into this tragedy, is the minister now prepared to name a senior court judge of competent jurisdiction to conduct an official inquiry into the relevant facts surrounding this incident?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will be considering that, although in the ordinary course I would do so at the time 1 received the actual report of the investigation into the incident itself. 1 expect to have that report, and also comments from the independent accident review committee in the fairly near future. At that point 1 will be able to judge whether an inquiry of the type the hon. member mentions should go ahead.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Transport. With respect to the introduction in this chamber of legislation that I know is well advanced, following the principle of the establishment of a full commission of inquiry on an independent basis, might I ask the minister whether he would feel there is considerable urgency in bringing forward legislation of this nature and whether we might expect a draft of it before the House adjourns for the summer?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do consider that that kind of legislation is important. As the hon. member knows, I developed a draft bill to produce an independent accident commission and made it available for public comment some time ago. That comment has been important and useful. It will lead to some revisions in the bill in its final form. I am now at the final stage of preparing those changes and submitting them to the cabinet for consideration. At that time I would hope to put the bill before the House for its urgent consideration.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the continuing concern for funding for post-secondary education for Indian Bands serviced by the Sudbury district office of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, including Wasse Abin College, the statement by the minister's parliamentary secretary that a submission was before the Treasury Board, and also a commitment by the deputy minister before the standing committee that existing levels of funding for post-secondary education would be maintained, can the minister now assure these bands concerned that funding will be provided by the department to ensure the post-secondary education for their young people this coming school year?


Hon. Janies Hugh Faulkner (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, on the general commitment, I certainly maintain the commitment I have given
Oral Questions
before. On the two specific cases the hon. member has referred to, I would have to look into the actual amounts.


AIR TRANSPORT
Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport: it concerns the coroner's inquest at Cranbrook which is investigating the fatal crash of a PWA jetliner. In compliance with the coroner's request, and in the interests of justice, will the minister order his officials to provide the coroner and the jury with the unabridged transcript of radio conversations surrounding the tragedy?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly be giving that consideration when the matter is brought to my personal attention. At that point in time I will expect to have some legal advice, as well, in regard to the situation which of course I do not have fully at hand at the moment.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I consider that answer is a stall, in light of the actual request by the coroner to transport officials and their refusal to provide that information. By way of supplementary question, can the minister explain why Cranbrook airport which, according to MOT guidelines, is supposed to have two fire trucks and 11 full-time firemen available, had only one fire truck and one fireman available at the time of the crash? Will the minister also report at the earliest opportunity how many other airports in Canada are below minimum firefighting standards?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, obviously, if the hon. member wishes to ask that type of question in the ordinary way-


An hon. Member:: It was in the ordinary way-


Otto Emil Lang: -all detailed information would be supplied and I would be glad to get it for him. I think the references he is making are newspaper references to what someone thought would be on hand and what actually was on hand. When he accuses me of stalling in regard to dealing with a request from a coroner-


An hon. Member:: Forty-three people died.


An hon. Member:: The truth hurts.


Otto Emil Lang: -I must say that until the request is received by me, I can hardly do anything about it. I think it is reasonable for me to say that since it is a legal matter, I would also want legal comment about it.

May 15, 1978
Oral Questions


AIR SAFETY FACILITIES AT AIRPORTS
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport on the same matter. The minister will recall I questioned him in the Transport committee on his intention with regard to the establishment of certain minimum standards at airports of the type at Cranbrook where this tragic accident occurred. I made reference in particular to the airport at Dawson Creek, B.C., where there is no air-to-ground communication of any kind, no firefighting equipment of any kind, and daily jet aircraft of the type which suffered this unfortunate accident when landing at Cranbrook.
Has the minister instructed his officials to make a survey of these kinds of airports and compile minimum standards to be followed at them, and will he advise whether the particular situation in Dawson Creek is being rectified at the present time?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I made it clear, in answer to an earlier question, that where air traffic control is desirable or required, it is being examined: it is constantly being examined against certain criteria, and we are now examining the criteria themselves. We have been changing from air radio control to air traffic control, or from air radio to air traffic control, from time to time. Not long ago we did so with regard to another airport in British Columbia. Interestingly enough, at that time one of the Conservative members of parliament urged that we not make that change because they were so satisfied with the air radio service that was there: they did not want air traffic control. Notwithstanding that, our standards indicate when the number of movements requires air traffic control to be put in place. We are re-examining these figures.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for either the Minister of Justice or the Solicitor General, whoever has the ultimate responsibility. It deals with the case of one Alexander Peter Treu recently convicted after a secret trial under the Official Secrets Act and sentenced to two years' imprisonment.
Can the hon. gentleman advise of the nature of the restrictions placed on Mr. Treu to prevent him from discussing any aspects of the facts of this case, this having taken place at the time of the conviction, the sentence and the application for bail on leave to appeal? Were such instructions given by the government to counsel to press for such restrictions? Would these restrictions have the effect of prohibiting myself or any other member of parliament from discussing the facts of the case with Mr. Treu?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the restrictions placed on Dr. Treu were, I understand, as a result of an order on a bail application made by the judge in question. Therefore, it is not up to me; it is not a governmental decision but a judicial decision, which surely the hon. member understands.
Whether the hon. member is free to discuss the case with Dr. Treu or not would remain to be seen by the wording of the precise order, which I do not have in front of me but which I would be happy to consider. However, it is not my position, as Minister of Justice, to advise members of parliament as to what are their rights. If the hon. member feels he has a right to consult with Dr. Treu, that is for him to exercise. It is not up to the government to advise members of parliament as to what are their rights.


Gerald William Baldwin: I suppose the latter part of that answer might properly mean inquiring what facilities might be available to members of parliament. I would like to ask this supplementary. At the time of the conviction, the judge stated that Mr. Treu was not a criminal in the regular sense of the word. After the investigation commenced, Dr. Treu was continuing to receive the documents. After the trial commenced, NATO awarded to Dr. Treu and/or his company a contract dealing with classified communications sytems.
Will the minister obtain and table in this House a transcript of the comments of the trial judge at the time of the conviction and at the time of the sentencing, so that we can determine whether there was a case of security or whether there was an element of bureaucratic bungling?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to obtain what I can and table it in the House. The hon. member referred to bureaucratic bungling, and on this morning's CBC radio broadcast he alleged that the Official Secrets Act in this particular case was being used to cover up government corruption, both of which are, of course, obviously denied.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am rather startled that the hon. member would use his words so loosely both this morning and this afternoon. I will do as he has requested and table in the House that which is available.


POST OFFICE
Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. In view of the silly and insulting behaviour of some inside postal workers toward management at the main Ottawa terminal on May 11, resulting in workers being sent home and police being called in, does the Postmaster General have any plans to prevent such an incident and

May 15, 1978

resulting disruption from happening in the future anywhere in Canada, especially in the Toronto area?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely with my colleague from Halton about the silliness and provocative attitude of some of the workers at the Alta Vista plant. I think it will be of interest to hon. members to know that right after that happened at the Alta Vista plant, I went there at one a.m. on Friday accompanied by the Deputy Postmaster General and my colleague from Ottawa West, Mr. Lloyd Francis, and saw for ourselves on the spot what had happened.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Lamontagne:: I think it was a positive action on our part and I hope everybody appreciates that we were told that as soon as the incident was noticed, people wearing those badges were given the choice of removing them or going home. Some stayed and some went home. We intend to continue with this policy. I think we are ready to communicate and dialogue with our workers, but no nonsense will be permitted in any plant of our Post Office.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. On May 10, the minister answered the hon. member for Greenwood as follows:
-as members of the alliance, we are the non-nuclear power. We do not have any nuclear weapons, nor would they be deployed on our soil.
I ask the minister, when did the nuclear weapons which were stationed on Canadian soil for the use of our interceptor aircraft in their NORAD role leave our territory? If they have not left, will the minister explain his remarks to the House?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member knows I do not answer questions on that subject.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, that leaves one wondering. Is it because the minister does not know, or because he has some fancied precedent? The former minister of national defence had no difficulty in answering that question. I would ask why the minister refuses to answer.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I believe my predecessor neither confirmed nor denied such allegations.
Oral Questions


INQUIRY WHETHER NUCLEAR WARHEADS TO BE DEPLOYED AT EDMONTON, ALBERTA, BASE
Mr. Steven Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that NORAD is going to establish a base in Edmonton, will the minister advise whether there will be warheads in that vicinity? If so, when can we be advised of such event in that particular area?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that the facility foreseen for Edmonton is a regional operations control centre. The only explosion will be in the hon. member's constituency at election time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board regarding job classification. It has come to my attention that there has been a waste of millions of dollars a year as a result of overclassification of jobs in the public service. I am sure the minister is aware of this serious matter and 1 wonder if he can advise whether a study has been undertaken. If so, would he table the report?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise of the hon. member's question. I am not aware of the situation as he describes it. I will certainly look into it with great interest. I do not believe the hon. member has made a correct statement of the situation.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, the minister conveniently did not answer my question, which is typical of him. It has come to my attention that the waste is in the neighbourhood of $100 million per year. That is related to the Ottawa-Hull area. Will the minister look into that question and report back to the House?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I believe I did answer the question. I do not accept the question as having a valid base. I do not think the premise is correct, so therefore the question does not call for a detailed response.

May 15, 1978
Oral Questions


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Can the minister say whether he still believes in the efficiency of Canada Works and Young Canada Works projects when it comes to job creation? If so, why does the minister make the job creation offices almost inoperative by cutting their budgets by 66 per cent?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do believe in the talent, efficiency and calibre of the people we have in place. From day to day we are asked about the growth and size of the civil service. In an area where we can try to effect economy and where we can maintain service, I think that is an appropriate place to make changes. That is why changes are made, not to decrease the efficiency and effectiveness of the two programs.


Gérard Laprise: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Considering that experience has shown that it is necessary and useful to have civil servants follow up, control and supervise Canada Works and Young Canada Works projects to make them as effective as possible and that several people in regional offices were dismissed following this decision by the minister for the sake of the future efficiency of these projects, would the minister reconsider his decision and put these people back to work so that they can monitor these projects to make them really efficient?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, we have to decide if we are going to effect economies and if we are going to make the best use of the personnel in place. I am suggesting that that is precisely what we are doing now, and I do not think additional people would be necessary at this time. The programs are working very effectively and well and the people in place are doing an excellent job.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. In light of the fact that the minister demonstrated his disdain for parliament and insulted a distinguished premier of our country in his answer to the hon. member for Vegreville about the necessity of the implementation of the Hall commission report, I wonder if he can tell us, if he has consulted all the

people he says he has, why he refuses to consult the architect of this commission, the Hon. Mr. Justice Hall, so that he can get first-hand information and advice about the implementation of this very important report.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think it is improper for the hon. member to suggest that I have any disdain for any aspect of parliament. I did refer to the partisan nature of the way the opposition worked a particular issue, but that should not surprise you, Mr. Speaker. The fact of the matter is that as far as the Hall commission report is concerned, I have had a variety of conversations with all of the five commissioners at different times, but not essentially about the nature of the report which I thought was fairly clear in its writings.
I have been acting to implement it, and in that regard the people who are obviously to be consulted are farmers, farm organizations, farm representatives and the communities which are affected by the recommendations, as well as my colleagues who are affected when I need $100 million, $200 million or $400 million to implement those recommendations. These are the consultations which have been taking place, and we have been making good progress. For the first time in six or seven decades we have seen the rebuilding of rail lines on the prairies instead of their deterioration. That is extremely positive action. It is part of the positive program which, in their partisan way, even Conservatives from the west insist on ignoring.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question, unlike the minister, will be brief. In light of the fact that even the cowardly Prime Minister thinks this parliament has more work to do, will the minister himself not consult with Mr. Hall? Will he not use his good offices to have the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications have Mr. Hall and Mr. Snavely appear before it so that if the minister does not care to consult them, at least members of parliament may?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I really am surprised at the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, because I did indicate in my answer that I thought the Hall commission report was clear in its terms and that I had no difficulty understanding what it does recommend and, indeed, am taking action to implement most of the important provisions.
We took action faster than has ever been seen before in responding to a commission report. Within ten days of receiving the Hall commission report, we implemented the first and most important recommendation to make permanent the 1,813 miles of rail which the commission said should be transferred to the basic rail network. Within days after that we had a conference with all interested organizations and heard from them that they wanted faster action in resolving the doubt about the lines which were not identified by the Hall commission for either being kept or being abandoned. These interested organizations showed great support for the idea of the Prairie Rail Action Committee going ahead and identifying the future
May 15, 1978

of those lines. Within a matter of months of that we also had before cabinet, and approved, a $100 million program for rebuilding rail lines, again for the first time in many decades. I think those are the important forms of action which are really needed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will extend the question period by a moment or two to recognize two or three hon. members who have been attempting to be recognized. However, before I can go on, I will have to ask the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar to withdraw the remarks he just made about the Prime Minister.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw them, of course. I did not mean to use the word "cowardly". Probably the word "brave" would have been more appropriate.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Paul E. McRae (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. It is supplementary to several other questions, but specifically to the question asked by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East regarding the coroner's remarks after the unfortunate tragedy at Cranbrook.
My question also concerns a series of problems which arose in northern Ontario regarding air safety and the in-house report which was made at that particular time. Following a question along this line, the minister mentioned that he was considering an independent board. I would like to ask the minister if he is considering that that board not only investigate accidents but also take responsibility for all safety, as is done in the United States.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the commission is intended essentially to be the independent review board. Indeed, the very argument in favour of the independent board is that the investigation into the situation be in the hands of someone other than the parties who have the responsibility for assuring that things are being done safely, in order that there not be an apparent conflict between them. I do not, therefore, contemplate transferring the responsibility for safety from its present location within the Department of Transport, but I will want at an early date to have an independent board.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Oral Questions
Development. In view of the fact that bargaining has broken off between the Public Service Association of the Northwest Territories and the employer, which happens to be the minister's department, is the minister aware of the apparent breach of the undertaking given by the employer, and that the employer has attempted directly to change certain terms and conditions of employment and may now be moving to change indirectly the housing rental rates and rental conditions applicable to members of the Public Service Association? I wonder if the minister can report anything about this matter to the House.


James Hugh Faulkner: I am afraid 1 cannot, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member has just brought it to my attention, but I would be pleased to look into it and get back to him later today.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the development agreement the minister has signed with the government of the province of Manitoba which concentrates primarily on the development of small business in that province as well as tourism, I would like to ask the minister whether he is now in a position to give a statement as to the feasibility, from his point of view, of a special ARDA program for southeastern Manitoba similar to what was done in the Interlake starting in 1961.


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am not entirely aware of the impact that the signing of such an agreement might have but I am quite prepared to raise the question with my officials and to look at whether such an agreement with the government of Manitoba would be workable. I shall consider the hon. member's question.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, last week after putting questions to the Minister of Transport we found that because we in this country do not have laws as they do in the United States obliging the recall of unsafe cars, cars which are being recalled in the United States are not being recalled in Canada.

May 15, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Stanfield
Today I should like to put a question to the Minister of the Environment. Last week there was a massive recall of many thousands of United States automobiles because they were not meeting pollution standards. Since similar cars are on the roads in Canada, I should like to ask the minister what the situation is here. Is the minister ordering a similar recall in this country?


Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Environment)):: will have to take that question as notice and look into the matter.


William Heward Grafftey: The Canadian people are being told time and time again that because of the climate here, the automobile pollution problem is more serious than it is in the United States. Can the minister tell us why laws considered necessary in the United States should apparently not be needed in Canada? If the situation is as I have described it, what action can we expect in Canada?


Len Marchand: I shall include that matter in my investigation and report to the hon. member.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. On April 26 the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) raised by way of a question of privilege the matter of the possible surveillance of candidates for election to this House. Some discussion took place on the subject on that occasion. On April 27 a motion, in fact, was put forward by the hon. member for Halifax, as follows:
That the matter of the Solicitor General's refusal to provide information respecting surveillance by the security forces of legitimate political candidates, and his contention that the McDonald commission is the only suitable vehicle to investigate a question affecting the privileges of all members of the House of Commons, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
There was some discussion of that motion and, in due course, I had to indicate there were certain procedural difficulties attached to it. I hope I expressed my attitude with regard to the seriousness of the matter by suggesting that further consideration might be given to a motion on the same subject in a different form.
Considerable discussion followed and, in fact, on May 2 the hon. member for Halifax put forward a motion which has now been in reserve for some time, namely:
That the matter of the surveillance by the security forces of candidates at general elections be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections in order that the committee can determine and report upon the extent of and criteria for such surveillance.
A number of hon. members subsequently took part in the discussion. I indicated a few days ago that I would take the matter under consideration-that although I felt great sympathy with the importance of the subject matter I was having difficulty with regard to extending the parameters of privilege

as we know them through the classic definition of privilege which is to be found in the nineteenth edition of May at page 67, and which has been referred to in many previous rulings:
Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of parliament, and by members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions, and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals. Thus privilege, though part of the law of the land, is to a certain extent an exemption from the ordinary law.
The House has always been guided by this general definition of privilege and I would refer hon. members, for example, to the statement of my distinguished predecessor, the hon. Speaker Lamoureux, of April 29, 1971, a statement which has often been quoted, certainly by myself:
On a number of occasions I have defined what I consider to be parliamentary privilege. Privilege is that which sets honourable members apart from other citizens giving them rights which the public do not possess. I suggest we should be careful in construing any particular circumstance which might add to the privileges which have been recognized over the years and perhaps over the centuries as belonging to members of the House of Commons. In my view, parliamentary privilege does not go much beyond the right of free speech in the House of Commons and the right of a member to discharge his duties in the House as a member of the House of Commons.
It is also very clear that while the House has the undoubted right to apply the law of privilege to specific circumstances, one House acting alone cannot create a new privilege. Herein lies the real dilemma for a Speaker. While I have every sympathy for the substance of the hon. member's complaint, I must determine by some measure the extent to which the complaint falls within the existing law of privilege or whether, by accepting it as a "prima facie case"-a popular definition, a phrase which I do not use often-I would be creating a new privilege. The difference lies in the fact that if the matter touches a question of privilege in the House the motion must be taken into consideration before any other business; if it does not, the motion is not by any means set aside for all time; it must simply be introduced in a more ordinary way.
It seemed to me that in dealing with a case which is very similar-the case involving the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez)-that I had gone about as far as I could go in extending the benefit of the doubt in the circumstances. I felt, as I said, that we were getting into a new area, the question of electronic surveillance of elected members of the House of Commons. I was not sure how the law of privilege applied in those circumstances, and I took the matter seriously enough to conclude that the House ought to be able to address itself to that matter, on the benefit of the doubt, perhaps in debate, perhaps in the course of deliberations in a committee.
In any event, as is always the case, the decision is not made by the Chair; once the Chair decides that a matter does touch privilege it is for the House to make the decision as to what should happen to the motion. In that particular case, as I say, I gave the benefit of the doubt, though in doing so I was concerned, even in those circumstances, that I might be extending the classic definition of privilege on the basis of the precedents I have just quoted. In other words, while it is clear in those circumstances that the law of privilege applied to members in their capacity as legislators individually and col-
May 15, 1978

lectively assembled, I am not clear as to the extent to which the representational function, though it is, of course, a very important aspect of the life of any member, can be assumed to be a necessary adjunct to his legislative function within the context of parliamentary privilege.
In the present case I cannot see how privilege as defined can be extended beyond the physical precincts and, indeed, beyond the life of a parliament to cover, not members but candidates, not in respect of activities here in this Chamber but elsewhere, and not during the life of a parliament but during a period when technically parliament does not exist.
As I said earlier, I have every sympathy with the hon. member's complaint and there will, I hope, be ways in which the matter can be raised through normal procedures, either the introduction of a motion or negotiations which might bring the matter forward in some other way. But confronted as I am with the existing law of privilege, to give this motion priority in the face of these precedents would, it seems to me, be stretching those precedents beyond all recognition, and I must therefore find I cannot accept the motion put forward by the hon. member for Halifax.


MR. HUNTINGTON-LEGAL PROCEEDINGS LAUNCHED BY VANCOUVER BRANCH OF CUPW
Mr. Speaker:: On Tuesday, May 2, 1978, the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) raised a complaint of harassment and obstruction in his parliamentary duties by virtue of a writ which had been issued against him in connection with remarks he had made on a radio talk show on May 6, 1977. In this broadcast he had "repeated the substance" of remarks he had made in the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications the day before, concerning the activities of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers particularly as they affected the city of Vancouver.
The hon. member based his procedural argument first on the privilege of freedom from molestation and, second, on an interpretation of the circumstances in which a matter arising outside parliament may be treated as a proceeding in parliament with respect to privilege.
It seems quite clear that this matter has caused the member certain difficulties in the performance of his duties as a member of parliament, but I have trouble in accepting the argument that these difficulties constitute obstruction or harassment in the narrow sense in which one must construe the privilege of freedom from molestation, particularly in the face of what must be construed as being ordinary access to the courts of the land, which surely ought to be something parliament would interfere with only upon the most grave and serious grounds.
In his argument respecting what constitutes a "proceeding in parliament", the hon. member places reliance on the decision of Roman v. Hudson's Bay Oil and Gas, Trudeau and Greene, in which the High Court of Ontario held that a press release and telegram repeating what was said in the House were extensions of statements made in the House. The hon.
Privilege-Mr. Huntington
member goes on to say that the decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal of Ontario in 1971, and in turn by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1973.
However, the Supreme Court of Canada merely said that it did not dissent from the views expressed in the courts below as to the privileges attached to statements made in parliament. I underline and emphasize those words, "made in parliament". It went on to dispose of the appeal on grounds other than privilege. Furthermore, Mr. Justice Hugessen in the recent decision on the Ouellet case, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeal of Quebec, felt that the decision of the Ontario courts in the Roman case did not represent the law. Thus the question of what is a "proceeding in parliament" in Canada is not clear in terms of the judicial precedents.
In respect of the position in the United Kingdom, which was referred to also by the hon. member, in the 1967 report of the select committee on parliamentary privilege, the British House of Commons resolved to bring into immediate effect all of the recommendations of this committee which did not require legislation. The committee report in question recommended that proceedings in parliament be defined by legislation, and that any communication between a member and a minister or an officer of the House concerning the business of the House should be fully privileged.
While it seems that the meaning of the expression remains for the moment equally unclear in the United Kingdom, nevertheless it appears to exclude the factual situation set out by the hon. member. Therefore, while I am willing to accept the argument that there may be circumstances in which a matter arising outside parliament can properly be considered as an extension of a proceeding in parliament, and therefore covered by privilege, I feel I would be extending the definition of privilege, even on those precedents, to include discussions on an ad lib basis on an open line radio or television show, in which dialogue goes on for some time, questions are posed, and answers are made. Even though they are based on an original proceeding in parliament, it would be an unwarranted extension of the reasoning in those cases to say that that circumstance could be accepted as an extension and, therefore, in fact as a proceeding in parliament within the precedents.
Therefore, on either count-the extension of proceedings in parliament or on the grounds of molestation-I am unable to find privilege in the hon. member's motion or question which he put before us.
There is a narrow procedural difficulty as well. The hon. member concluded his presentation with a motion indicating that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. Consistently I have rejected and set aside that kind of motion, even after a question of privilege, on the grounds that, as constituted, it would be far too general a motion for the committee to deal with properly and to determine an appropriate mandate for the committee.

May 15, 1978
Point of Order-Mr. McKinnon


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few brief words with regard to the matter raised by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield). In effect, I rise to register a caveat. I believe a Liberal member who is not present in the Chamber today had planned, if Your Honour ruled against the hon. member for Halifax, to raise a question of privilege based on the invitation issued to the House of Commons by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) at a press conference, to pronounce itself on the issue of surveillance of members of parliament by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I believe the hon. member to whom I have referred will do that when he returns. In case he does not, I enter a caveat indicating that I should like to raise the issue in that form.


POINT OF ORDER
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson) either attempted to or did mislead the House in answer to one of my questions. My question concerned the position on nuclear weapons in conjunction with Canadian forces. In answer to my supplementary question, the minister claimed that the previous minister of national defence, Mr. Richardson, had never answered clearly in the House of Commons on this.
I should like to refer Your Honour to Hansard dated March 27, 1974, at page 908, where I directed a similar question to the then minister of national defence. He replied as follows:
Mr. Speaker, none of our aircraft are equipped with nuclear missiles, but we do have in storage, and this has been public knowledge for several years- nuclear missiles at Comox and at the other bases from which our interceptor squadrons take off.
I do not think the minister deliberately misled the House. I think it was done through ignorance, as it was through ignorance that he misled the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) last week. It is through ignorance that he attempted to get away with it again today. The former minister of national defence stated that nuclear missiles were on our soil and, for all we can determine, they still are.


Hon. Norman A. Cafik (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson) is not present in the House at this particular moment, I simply enter a caveat indicating that he may want an opportunity to respond to the allegation or suggestion of the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member raises what is essentially a disagreement in the interpretation which can be placed upon a minister's response. In any event, it does not constitute privilege. Rather, it constitutes a disagreement which may be contributed to at some other time.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: for leave to introduce Bill C-56, to amend the statute law relating to income tax and to authorize payments related to provincial sales tax reductions.


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

Dean Waldon Whiteway: for leave to introduce Bill C-455, respecting public opinion polls.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, my bill would not disallow public opinion polls during the time of a writ period, but simply make certain requirements, namely, stating who took a poll, the sampling and the results of the poll, in order that Canadians are able to ascertain whether the poll was an adequate one and not simply one done by a political party with no real basis of sampling.


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

Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I believe agreement has been reached in respect of granting leave through an order of the House to revert briefly to the tabling of documents at 8 p.m. tonight to permit the tabling of the report of the Royal Commission on Corporate Concentration.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I gather that has something to do with the market. That is agreeable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed, and so ordered.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
May 15, 1978
Mr. Frank Maine (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 204, 800, 1,433, 1,460 and 1,586.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What is the total number of persons under contract to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and how many are retired public servants?
2.	What was the total amount in (a) 1975 (b) 1976 paid to those under contract and how much of this was to retired public servants?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: am advised as follows by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation: 1. CMHC has 415 persons on a contract basis of employment. None of these are retired public servants.
2. Such contract employees were paid (a) $1,852,890 in 1975, and (b) $2,941,363 in 1976. None of these amounts were paid to retired public servants.


Mr. Beaudoin: In (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977, were DREE grants allotted to the Constituency of Richmond and, if so (i) in what amount (ii) for what major economic sectors?


Mr. Donald Wood (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: under the Regional Development Incentives Act:
Company offered an incentive	Accepted Incentive Offer	Economic sectorAbattoir Giroux Inc. (Bromptonville)	$39,860	Food and beveragesSpecialites B-Pro Inc. (Windsor)	$51,000	Primary processing of metalsJolin Machine Shop (St-Fran9ois-Xavier de Brompton)	$20,660	Metal products manufacturingLes Ateliers Beauchemin Inc. (Danville)	$27,900	Idem(b) 1976-77	Company offered an incentive	Accepted Incentive Offer	Economic sectorLes Plastiques La Salle Inc. (Richmond)	$147,650	Rubber and plasticRobert & Robert Ltee. (St-Fran9ois-Xavier de Brompton)	$ 70,000	Wood industryRousseau Lumber Inc. (Weedon)	$ 13,640	IdemPlomberie Asbestos Inc. (Asbestos)	$ 76,740	Metal products manufacturing
Order Paper Questions
(c) 1977-78
(as of November 30, 1977)
Accepted
Company offered an incentive	Incentive Offer Economic sector
Boisvert, Luc	$14,795	Clothing industry
(company to be incorporated)
(Asbestos)
Les Bardeaux de l'Est Inc.	$25,160	Wood industry
(Marbleton)


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): During the fiscal year 1976-77, did the government subsidize the powdered milk producers and, if so, in what amount?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: The Canadian dairy commission advises: no.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): In 1975, did the government subsidize liquid milk producers and industrial milk producers and, if so, what was the amount in each case?


Eugene Whelan: The Canadian dairy commission advises: yes. Subsidies paid to liquid milk producers for the dairy year 1975-76 totaled $81,824,335. Subsidies paid to industrial milk producers for the dairy year 1975-76 totaled $184,038,334.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	What was the cost of the full page advertising campaign by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources approximately March 31, 1978 which indicated the approximate mileage for several cars?
2.	What was the cost of producing and distributing the 106 page book on information about buying a new or used car which was distributed by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources on a request basis?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows:
1.	Approximately $80,000.
2.	Cost of producing and distributing (by mail) one car book-23.7 cents. As of April 20, 1978, 2.3 million copies have been printed and distributed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

May 15, 1978
Customs Tariff



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: that Bill C-48, to amend the Customs Tariff and to amend an act to amend the Customs Tariff, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-48 is to implement the proposed changes in the Customs Tariff contained in the ways and means motion that accompanied the budget on April 10, 1978. Proposed changes deal with the four following points: first, the extension, for another year, of the temporary reductions on a huge array of consumer goods which otherwise would have expired on June 30, 1978; second, the cancellation of the advantages granted through the British preferential tariffs on certain goods imported from Great Britain and Ireland; third, the provision of assistance to Canadian manufacturers of industrial tractor tires and chemical products used in the production of pesticides; and finally, various changes reducing the tariff on certain imports by an amount of roughly $135 million.
The main provision of the bill, namely clause 5, provides for the renewal, till June 30, 1979, of the many temporary tariff cuts which were to have expired on June 30, 1978. Those cuts were provided as a means to fight inflation in the Febuary 19, 1973, budget. Imports benefitting from the tariff cuts were estimated at about $1.5 billion in 1977 of which food products, including raw sugar, represented about $400 million. Other products included in the overall proposal are: medical and pharmaceutical products, automobile parts, hand tools, photographic equipment, vacuum cleaners, china and sports articles.
The complete proposal for July 1, 1978 will differ on four points from that of 1977. First, the reduced customs tariff rate on canned and frozen asparagus and frozen brussel sprouts will expire on June 30, 1978. This measure takes into account the recommendations of the Tariff Board to increase the protection in the case of these products. Moreover, the reduction of customs tariffs on glassware will expire in order to stimulate the development of the Canadian production of those items. Third, the reduction of customs tariff on synthetic detergents will not be renewed after June 30, 1978, due to the fast growing rate of imports in this sector. Finally, the 10 per cent temporary rate applied to some canned meat will also expire at the end of June. It will be raised to 15 per cent, a figure more consistent with the rates applied to other meat products as well as to the needs of the industry, but even then far below the rates effective before 1973.
We propose to cancel the advantages granted through the British preferential tariffs on certain goods imported from Great Britain and Ireland, namely confectionery, truck-mounted cranes, some diesel engines, some equipment used for community television broadcasting and knitted wear. This measure is motivated by the desire to help Canadian manufactures which do not operate at full capacity or which have seen their volume of business drop significantly because of the preferential rates granted to some imports. From now on, these imports will be subject to the most favoured nation tariff. Of course, Canada no longer has to apply preferential tariffs to goods from Great Britain or Ireland. A number of them will probably disappear under the tariff cuts which will be determined at the multilateral trade negotiations.
The bill also provides for duty on tires for tractors used for other than farm purposes. This measure will aid Canadian manufacturers who produce tires for industrial tractors and will put an end to a situation of inequity whereby tires used for the tractional components of certain types of equipment are duty free whereas tires for the non-tractional components are dutiable.
The proposed imposition of duty on two basic chemicals used for manufacturing herbicides will allow important investments in this industry and will help in establishing a guaranteed Canadian source of supply. Pesticides used for farming purposes will continue to be duty free.
There are also other amendments contained in Bill C-48. Aircraft and aircraft engines of types and sizes not made in Canada which were to be temporarily duty free until June 30, 1978 will continue to be so for an extra year. Markers used for crop dusting operations, as well as catgut used in the repair of sports racquets would also be duty free. The bill also proposes a cut for parts of electric light fixtures.
Mr. Speaker, this concludes my general comments on Bill C-48. I will be happy to answer specific questions on the bill when it is considered by the committee of the whole.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, this is one of those bills that, because of its highly technical nature, precipitates a rather limited debate. I suppose the only subject matter that is even more technical and would produce a more narrow debate would be that involving the Income Tax Act.
This motion gives rise to a rather interesting debate because it seems that the minister must have clobbered the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in order to bring his attention to the fact that there is a paragraph in this motion which, in effect, would mean that parliament had to deal with customs amendments or the minister's proposals of April 10 would have been for naught.
Let me point out that in the ways and means motion which gives rise to this particular bill, and which appears in Hansard of April 10, it is stated in paragraph 5 at page 4341:

May 15, 1978

That any enactment founded upon subparagraph 1(2) of this motion shall be deemed to have come into force on the 1st day of July 1978, and to have applied to all goods mentioned in the said paragraph imported or taken out of warehouse for consumption on or after that day, and to have applied to goods previously imported for which no entry for consumption was made before that day.
The next paragraph refers to changes based upon subparagraph 1(1) and paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the ways and means motion which came into force on April 11, and it states that they will be deemed to have applied to all goods mentioned in the particular paragraphs, imported or taken out of the warehouse for consumption on or after that date. In other words, unlike income tax, the changes in the customs tariff must be passed by parliament for them to have effect. They would not have had any effect on July 1 had the Prime Minister called an election, as he had indicated he was going to do.
We get some rather knowing smiles from hon. members opposite, but we know that they are now behaving entirely from hindsight. Many of them, depending on what part of the country they come from, were really wanting an election, and others were pushing away an election with a ten foot pole. However, that is one of the effects, and it may have been a factor when the Prime Minister decided to put the election off until some indefinite date in the future.
The finance minister's thoughts are the same as mine in this connection, that in so far as the custom tariff is concerned there has to be enactment into law before the provisions can be effective. Therefore, unless all of these provisions were to go down the drain, the proposals made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) in his budget, which was designed to stimulate Canadian industry, would be all for naught.
The debate on second reading of this bill will range far and wide because schedule A contains every particular item that is subject to customs tariff and therefore each and every one is open to discussion. I know that many of my colleagues are going to comment upon some of the items referred to in this bill. They will comment favourably on a number of them, but many are going to say that action should have been taken of a different nature with respect to the other items. There are certain proposals that they would have liked because of their regional interests.
The total of the changes in the customs tariff are subject to the over-all influence of the GATT negotiations now going on in Geneva under the heading of the Tokyo Round. Naturally, at the moment certain areas are off limits because they are the subject matter of these negotiations.
There have been many debates in this House with regard to the secrecy of the negotiations in Geneva and the fact that the government has not taken the provinces and industry into its confidence. We had a recent visit from Mr. Warren and Mr. Grey, the chief negotiators, and they have been doing some explaining, but it is rather late in the day.
Our form of proceeding under these tariff negotiations is totally wrong. We should be much more open with the people of Canada. It is as though it were the government versus the
Customs Tariff
rest of Canada, and that Canadians are lucky peasants to have whatever it is decided should be imposed upon them. To me this is fundamentally wrong. As an example, when it comes to the petrochemical industry, surely the government of my own province of Alberta has a clear interest and a right to participate in the negotiations, not merely, "it is the view of Canada or the negotiators that such and such should take place." It is the same with Saskatchewan and its potash industry, Ontario with regard to chemicals and steel, some provinces with regard to textiles and shoes, and so on.
The situation with regard to textiles is very strange because in some parts of Canada the industry is in very dire straits at the present time, and in other parts it is not so. I recently visited a friend of mine who runs a textile converting plant and who is adding to his premises and to his work force. To his work force alone he is not just adding one, two or three people, but hundreds. He says, "Oh yes, I know that there is tough competition from abroad and that our goods are higher priced than those of our competitors, whether they are domestic or foreign, but I am increasing my production because of the quality of workmanship and design, and the public is prepared to pay for that all the time."
The provinces and industry, as I and my friends have continuously pointed out, should have an overt role in the negotiations and know ahead of time what the government is thinking in its instructions to its negotiators. The United States does not conduct its negotiations in absolute secrecy; its producers are informed of what is ahead of them and what the government is thinking. 1 am sure that some of my colleagues will expound at greater length on this. Perhaps one could invite my colleague from York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), who has had a good deal to say about this in the past, to do so.
I would like to draw to the minister's attention, since it obviously comes under the authority of the Minister of National Revenue and the Customs Tariff Act-and here I distinguish between the Customs Tariff Act and the Customs Act- section 17(1) of the Anti-Dumping Act with regard to varying the rate of duty after the anti-dumping tribunal has come to a final decision, which is classified as irrevocable. It states:
The deputy minister, upon receipt of an order... and subject to subsection 18(4) and subsection 19(1), such decision is final and conclusive.
There was a recent decision by the anti-dumping tribunal with respect to certain steel shapes that were being imported into the country, and frankly it was to protect Algoma Steel. They had complained that there was dumping in certain parts of the country from various sources and, following representations from the west coast and Alberta, the Minister of National Revenue gave relief against some of the additional duties imposed by the anti-dumping tribunal. The point at issue is that it was not in the findings of the anti-dumping tribunal that there was dumping.
I would like to know what power the Minister of National Revenue has to relieve against something where the decision is said to be final and conclusive. There has been some discussion

May 15, 1978
Customs Tariff
about this in the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, but I find the replies of the minister totally inconclusive and evasive. It seems to me, on the face of it at least, that there should be an avenue open for a ministry to be selective and say that, under appropriate legislation, if a board, having found there was dumping, imposed certain dumping charges according to law, then the minister or the government, as the case may be, could relieve against that decision. This is wide open to abuse and I should like the Minister of Finance to deal with this point in his reply.
There are four kinds of customs tariff that are applicable in Canada under schedule A. There is the very familiar British preferential tariff; then there is the most favoured nation tariff; then the general tariff which, of course, is the highest of all, and then a category that was introduced about 1972 or 1973 known as the general preferential tariff. The reason I want to talk about these categories is to determine the guidelines for the particular category into which a country will fit.
We know that the most favoured nation status applies as a result of direct treaty. There is in the structure, over-all, a general tariff; then there is an exception to the general tariff under the most favoured nation provision. Of course the ramifications of that are easily understood. If Canada negotiates a treaty with a certain country and thereby sets certain rates of import duty on certain commodities which are less than those provided for under the general tariff, any other country which gets the most favoured nation classification will immediately get the best possible deal in existence with regard to that commodity. I dare say most of the goods that come into this country come in under the most favoured nation classification.
British preferential tariffs came into being as a result of negotiations in 1932, and have been very important to the type of industry we have in Canada. As a matter of fact, if anything, that particular tariff has been important in bringing a branch plant industry to Canada. At that time the British Empire market was possibly the largest in the world, as politically defined. In order for American firms and others to compete at the most advantageous level, they had to establish branch plants or subsidiaries in Canada and then, of course, they came within the terms of the British preferential tariff.
The same thing is done today by the Japanese, the Americans, and the Canadians establishing branch plants or subsidiaries in common market countries. The common market has an additional deal, however. Since the 1930s the non-tariff barriers have been refined, which can sometimes prove as highly effective as a 100 per cent duty in keeping Canadian commodities out of, say, the common market.
We ourselves, are moving against the British preferential tariff classification. As a matter of fact, the backbone of this budget is a retaliation or restriction imposed upon commodities manufactured in the United Kingdom and Ireland because those areas have now joined the common market. We do not want common market countries to push their goods through
the United Kingdom or Ireland into Canada under the lower BP.
I want a better explanation for this move than that we want to encourage the manufacturer of certain commodities in Canada so we are going to place restrictions against the British. It has to be shown that the Canadian production would benefit Canada not only in the number of jobs that may be created but also that Canadian consumers will benefit. I find it an exercise in futility to say that we are going to establish a particular branch plant which will provide, say, some 300 jobs, but that its production will cost 15 per cent more than before and is going to keep on costing 15 per cent more. Of what benefit is that to the Canadian consumer? I hope there is a good answer. The proposals in this legislation which cover this particular restriction are rather sweeping.
What guidelines have been laid down to establish the list of countries entitled to general preferential tariff treatment? I thought they were developing countries-third world countries. When I examined the list, however, I found some rather sophisticated countries with manufactures that are not just handicrafts or agriculture or the basic products that we would import in great quantity. Why do we have a general preferential tariff for Argentina, for Greece, Hong Kong, the Republic of Korea, Romania, Venezuela, and Yugoslavia? Those are examples I have chosen. I do not particularly want to single out these countries. It seems to me in many aspects these countries are as far advanced as Canada. Their economies are strong. Why would we want to extend to them the general preferential tariff?
I find it extraordinary for instance that I would extend the same tariff rates to the Argentine that I would give, for instance, to the Ivory Coast, to Jamaica, to Liberia or to Malawi. Down the list we go. I have no objection whatsoever to this category, and I have said so in the past. I think most of the countries included in the list deserve being placed on that list. But again, I am going to ask the Minister of Finance to indicate why the countries I have mentioned have been included. And if Romania is on the list why would Hungary not be on the list, or Bulgaria? Those countries are at the same levels of development and, in many ways, they are much further ahead than Canada. But why are they on this third world list?
I have a few more things to say. On a personal basis I am pleased that the minister has agreed to create the item of 40917-1 which is not anything of great quantity but will be something of great import to western Canadians later this year in dealing with crop spraying or crop dusting. That is simply articles of any material designed to be ejected from aircraft for use as markers in crop spraying or crop dusting operations. These are a form of degradable paper which is not made in Canada. The market here in Canada is not big enough to justify any paper mill making these items in this quality and quantity at a price that would be economically feasible for the farmers concerned. These paper products are made by a couple

May 15, 1978

of firms in the United States where there is a much bigger market. It is only a question of reducing the duty from 17.5 per cent, which would be the most favoured nation tariff applicable to the United States, to free entry. To that extent I am sure that that minor price concession which may be available to the agricultural industry in Canada would be most appreciated.
Then we have the general items covering aircraft No. 44047-1. Those are aircraft engines when imported for use in the equipment of aircraft when of types or sizes not made in Canada on or after July 1, 1979. They will come in free under the British preferential tariff. Some are free under the most favoured nation tariff, but usually it is 7.5 per cent. General tariff is 27.5 per cent.
Over 20 years I think I have seen a similar paragraph in every blessed budget in one way or the other. I do not know why this "rolling date" is used. I have asked ministers of finance for an answer on that point. They have said that is the way it has been done all the time. Presumably the habit has become jelled into acceptable practice, and there it is.
Many of my colleagues will deal with fruits and vegetables. There are certainly other involved subjects that I know some of my colleagues will talk about. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we would prefer to see a wide ranging debate at this stage. We have not had a good debate on these matters for some time, and once we get into the committee of the whole the rules of relevancy will restrict us to the particular subject at hand.
There is no way hon. members will talk about textiles and shoes when we are dealing with canned pork. There again, some of my agricultural colleagues will take up that particular item to see why the change was made, sort of halfway between what it was. Prior to February 20, 1973, the most favoured nation tariff for canned pork and canned hams was 25 per cent and 20 per cent respectively. These items mostly came in from the United States, but there would be some coming in from Poland and other countries. The British preferential tariff was a flat 15 per cent across the board. Now the most favoured nation tariff as of the effective date will be 15 per cent. It had been lowered to 10 per cent. So there is a sort of halfway house. The minister did allude to that in his remarks, but frankly not enough. We will examine these at greater length.
In due course this bill will pass. I do not know that there are any particular items which anyone would find that objectionable at this time. But on the other hand I am sure many colleagues in the House will discuss with the minister more of what he did not include in this particular bill than those things which he did include in the bill.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, in some ways nothing better illustrates the problem of Canada and the problem of Canadian tariffs than the recent conflict between the federal government and the government of the province of Quebec regarding the use of the sales tax rebate.
The sales tax rebate by the federal government was designed to be non-discriminatory so that it would apply to everything whether the item was imported or domestic. Quebec has quite
Customs Tariff
obviously opted for protectionism by the choice of its plan. This is very significant. My purpose in raising this question is not to cast blame on Quebec or to be critical of the position that Quebec has taken, but rather to point out the importance of this whole matter of tariffs and protection to the future of Canada. In fact the issue in Quebec may be decided more on the question of creating employment through tariff protection than on the language issue which all of us thought was so important. This is becoming quite clear. It is also quite clear that the Quebec government has the support not only of those who voted for that particular government but also the support of the Liberals in Quebec. It has the support of almost everyone in Quebec on the protectionist stance it has taken. By making its sales tax rebate proposals selective it has singled out those items which were of particular concern to the province of Quebec. It is a lesson for Canada.
Canadian policies in the past were reaping a whirlwind. Canadian policy in the past did not concentrate on the manufacturing industry, although for brief periods in our history there was that kind of concentration. When that concentration did take place, nothing was done to make it permanent or to stabilize it.
Canadian policy has been directed toward the export of raw materials, not toward secondary industry and labour intensive industry. While that policy may have made some sense in the initial stages of the development of Canada, in that we had a large territory with a relatively small population, it is quite clear that as our population grew, particularly following World War II, this policy of concentrating on our resource industries proved to be a disaster. Not only was it a disaster in the sense that it did not provide jobs, but even the resources themselves were no longer in demand.
We used to think that Canada had a monopoly on nickel. However, one of the greatest problems we face today in terms of employment is in the nickel mines of Canada. We no longer have a monopoly on anything. In many cases, because of foolish policies, we have taken the best sources of supplies and left ourselves with secondary or expensive sources.
There are a whole series of towns and districts in this country that bear testimony to the consequence of depending on non-renewable resource extraction. You can list the towns where, when the resource was defeated, the town was finished. The people moved elsewhere or changed the skills they had acquired in the resource-related industry to other industries.
We have to look at the attitude we are going to take toward tariff protection in the future. We are going into the GATT negotiations without any clear notion of what we want to be as a country. We have no clear notion of what is good for us in the short run or good for us in the long run. We are going in with our heads in the clouds, with a kind of mush-ball policy that there is something virtuous about free trade, as though there was free trade and as though GATT should be the first approach rather than the second. We know from our experience in Canada that it is not the tariff arrangement that is the

May 15, 1978
Customs Tariff
most compelling and telling in terms of trade, but the other things. One example is the many ways in which countries successfully keep our products out of their markets while at the same time paying lip service to free trade.
We should not be giving anything at the GATT negotiations because we do not have anything to give. In the short run our problem is that we must cure the high unemployment in Canada. That can only be cured in the labour intensive industries in this country, the ones that need the most protection.
In the longer run, we do not have that problem. The demographic observations are that by the end of this century we will have a labour shortage, and maybe even before then. It is at that time we should be the most serious about free trade. It is at that time that this country will be able to afford to liberalize its trade, but not at this moment.
In many ways we have to some extent been saved from having the situation even worse than it is by the falling Canadian dollar. This has restored some jobs that were being lost because of previous policies.
There is not much time. The government will have to make some clear-cut statement on what its intentions are in the GATT negotiations. On those occasions when we have questioned the government, the answer has been that we are for fair trade. Everybody is for fair trade, but what does it mean? How do you debate fair trade? In what context is the government going to carry out its negotiations?
If we want to see some evidence of what freer trade has done for Canada, there are two examples that come to mind. There are many others, but these two are outstanding. The first is the Canada-U.S. auto agreement. We went into that and were assured that we would get our fair share of the market. In the initial stage of the implementation of that agreement, we got our fair share. To some extent we got a little bit more. At that time many of us warned the government not to be obtuse about it. We stated that it was one of those fortuitous things that take place in the initial stages of an agreement of this kind, in the sense that investment in the auto industry is very lumpy and there had to be heavy investment in the initial stages by the government in order to get the kind of productivity that was required.
We warned at that time it would be the second round of investment that would be important. We are in that second round of investment and we are not getting our fair share of the investment. Nor are we getting our fair share of the jobs. This is one area in which the government took some pride. It said it would liberalize trade and that it would work for the benefit of Canada. This has not worked for the benefit of Canada over the whole period. There were some initial advantages. When you look at the benefits, you have to ask yourself whether there was an alternative to the Canada-U.S. auto agreement. There was an alternative. There is still the alternative that we could have created an indigenous automobile industry in this country rather than tie ourselves into the decision-making process of some other country or of the corporations of some other country.
The second area I want to point out is that of farm machinery. There has been free trade in farm machinery for some 25 years, and even more with some particular kinds. What has been the consequence? How much benefit have we received from free trade in farm machinery? Certainly our farmers received some benefit. We are happy about that.
In terms of manufacturing and jobs that need to be created, we have not benefited from free trade in farm machinery. As development took place and new technology was introduced, it was not in Canada that the plants were built and the production took place, but across the border. Canadian companies simply moved across the border on one pretext or another in order to manufacture in the United States. We have not benefited from free trade in either one of those two areas.
I know everyone wants to be in favour of free trade, I no less than anyone else. However, unless there is an industrial strategy and a short-run solution plus a long-run solution, under the present conditions in Canada, and with our enormous level of unemployment, freer trade will only increase unemployment and do nothing to give us the jobs required in this country. We should not be negotiating on that basis, particularly since other countries of the world are not putting their cards on the table. They are not prepared to dismantle the various institutional barriers they have set up for Canadian goods. We have nothing to gain from freer trade at the GATT negotiations, and we have to state that plainly and bluntly.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would like to cover four or five items. I would like to begin with the items on pages 7 and 8 of the schedule relating to the new levy to be in effect as of July 1, 1979, on aircraft and aircraft engines. The item on page 7 is tariff item 44043-1 relating to aircraft, not including engines, and on page 8 it is item 44047-1 relating to aircraft engines. Incidentally, I think this provision has to be clearly registered: neither aircraft nor aircraft engines being made in Canada. They are now free unless they come under the general tariff, and I think it is fair to say that most aircraft producers have negotiated most favoured nation agreements with Canada, so that it is really most favoured nations we are concerned about. I repeat that the important thing here is that the aircraft and the engines we are talking about are aircraft and engines which are not made in Canada.
As I understand it, customs tariffs have two purposes, first to raise revenue, and second either to protect existing industry in Canada or to provide a climate where an industry could develop. To my knowledge the levy which is to be imposed is to be effective July 1, 1979. That is a year off, but still business people are thinking about the imposition of this tax a year hence, and they are thinking about the businesses in which they are involved.
As a result of talking to one particular group of people in my area I have reason to believe that while there may be anywhere from 6 to 12 firms which would be hit adversely by the imposition of this particular levy, there would probably be

May 15, 1978

about 500 firms across Canada which would be adversely affected by the imposition of this levy of an extra 7.5 per cent. The figures were provided to me in an interesting way. We have to remember that the largest proportion of these particular items are imported from the United States and Britain. I think Allison engines and air frames are imported from the United States.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) has been borrowing money all over the country and all over the world. He has been getting lines of credit to sort out our Canadian dollar, but we are still faced with importing goods which are going to cost an extra 11 or 12 cents on the dollar. This bill does not deal with that, and that is one of the problems we are facing. There was a time when there was an advantage to importing. There was a time when we got one per cent or two per cent premium on the Canadian dollar. Importers now have to pay 11 or 12 cents more in order to buy U.S. dollars to settle their accounts. That is the first levy, 11 or 12 per cent. Let us use 12 per cent.
On top of that there is going to be a new customs duty of 7.5 per cent. That will bring the cost of any particular item up to about $1.20, or a 20 per cent increase on imported items. Our Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) has praised our sagging dollar for what it does for our exports. No one can deny that it is helpful to exports. Unfortunately, we are an importing country too, and amongst the things we import are aircraft and aircraft engines. The cost is now $1.20, or a 20 per cent increase. On top of that there is federal sales tax of about 12 per cent, which takes us up to about $1.34, a 34 per cent increase. On top of that there is a 10 per cent excise duty, which takes us up to $1.48.
In other words, for every dollar's worth of aircraft or engines or engine parts imported into this country, the Canadian user will have to pay an extra 48 cents over the market price. There are a dozen firms in my area which are afflicted with this problem of a falling dollar in addition to the prospect of having to face a new customs duty, sales tax, and excise tax. I am not sure which comes on first, but a 48 per cent increase is an intolerable burden to be placed on small business.
If an aircraft suffers a broken axle on landing, or a damaged wing as it dips when it is coming in, those elements have to be imported, and the cost will be 48 per cent more. If those parts can be made in Canada, there is no problem. Today in the question period we were talking about a dreadful, fatal accident at Cranbrook airport. PWA now has to import a whole new aircraft. Let us say the cost will be $6 million. When 48 per cent is added to that, on a quick calculation I would say the cost will be something in the order of $8.5 million for an aircraft which otherwise would cost about $6 million. This new 7.5 per cent levy which is being considered for aircraft parts, air frames and aircraft engines will impose a needless burden on a growing industry of technicians who have developed self respect and who are contributing considerably to the economy of our country.
There is one other element of this industry which baffles me. I have been in correspondence with the ministry on this matter. By administrative ruling a distinction has been made
Customs Tariff
between a licensed carrier, and the freedom with which he can import, and a service organization which is not a licensed carrier, and the imposition of the customs duty and sales tax on a rebatable basis.
The matter which was brought to my attention involved the importation of an aircraft engine on which a duty of $1,128.75 had to be paid. Customs said, "Don't worry, you will get it back". Customs just had to process it. Customs collected the money and paid it back, and that took two months. That is bureaucratic nonsense. If a licensed carrier can bring in a replacement part-for example, an engine-duty free, there is no reason in the world why a person who is not a licensed carrier should pay a duty which is rebatable. There is no sense in that at all. The only justification I can see is that it keeps some public servants employed going through papers. I do not think public servants enjoy being employed in that way. They prefer useful work. There must be some way of getting around this stupidity, and I should like to see efforts made to do so.
There is another item with which I should like to deal, one which is in the schedule today. I am writing to the ministers concerned with this matter, but I feel I want to mention it now. It has to do with the imposition of a customs duty on a drug product used in treating a chronic disease. Its purchase imposes a very heavy burden on those who use it. The drug in question is a megavitamin used in the treatment of multiple sclerosis-M.S., as it is popularly called, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall use the abbreviation as being somewhat easier to pronounce. Megavitamins are used as a treatment, and some people believe them to be a cure.
In fact I was talking today to a man who had been afflicted with M.S. and who has undergone a course of treatment at considerable expense. He has since returned to my riding

he is a music teacher-and is now cured, though he has to continue his treatment. I might add that before he left his doctor told him he would be confined to a wheelchair for the rest of his life. This man, like others in a similar position, has to pay customs duty on the drug product he uses. That is nonsense, Mr. Speaker. It does not create revenue of any significance for the consolidated revenue fund, but it does cause great hardship, particularly in areas where pharmacare does not cover the cost of vitamins. In British Columbia, for example, I gather that vitamins as a class of drug are exempted from the pharmacare program.
Let us consider just what is involved here, bearing in mind that a person who suffers from M.S. is likely to be confined to a wheelchair and is almost certain to be partially removed from the labour market. We are speaking of people who cannot in the normal course of things find work, unlike most of us here who might, for instance, become lumbermen if we were tough enough. But the M.S. sufferers cannot do this, and they are the people who are being asked to pay, in this case 17'/2 per cent according to one of the ratings by which megavitamins are allowed to enter this country. They are not made here in Canada, but if they come through on prescription in the

May 15, 1978
Customs Tariff
normal channel they are subject to a duty of 17l/2 per cent under item 7-1100-1.
This particular item is the item under which all articles not listed elsewhere in the customs tariff are placed. If there is something which is not covered and it is felt the government should get something out of it, it goes into this category and is subject to a duty of 17'/2 per cent. There is no sales tax imposed in that case, but sometimes these pharmaceutical products enter the country through the post.
I myself find it strange that drugs, as a class of goods, should be permitted to enter Canada for collection by an individual without a doctor's prescription in his hand. But that is another matter and outside the range of today's debate, although I do feel that drugs should be importable either by a pharmacist, by a hospital or similar institution, or by a doctor, but not by a patient because, by permitting this, we are inviting people to bring in drugs in another way. Be that as it may, when these products are brought in through the mail they are sometimes subject to a duty of a different type because the man at the post office is not as familiar with the various schedules as the customs officer would be. So a duty of 10 per cent is imposed, plus a 12 per cent sales tax. The increase in cost in that case is of the order of 23 per cent. We should bear in mind that an M.S. victim is not readily employable and this megavitamin treatment may be costing as much as $115 a month. We could lighten this load if we were prepared to invent a classification-I would be prepared to produce a number for it if the question were in front of me- and say that entry would be "free-free-free."
One cautionary word. I believe there is division in the medical profession as to the curative power of megavitamins. Some doctors say this treatment is a cure, others say it is a palliative, or that the cure, if one is achieved, takes place in the mind of the receiver. That is an aspect with which I am not competent to deal. I do say that those who have found a cure and believe it to be due to the megavitamins they have taken, feel obliged to continue the treatment all their lives. So when a person has to pay an extra $35 to $250 a month for his treatment it is time we took steps to remove the customs duty from that item. It is not a matter of saying: well, they can always claim it under the pharmacare program. I have already dealt with that aspect. But that is not the point. The public should not have to pay this extra 17'/2 per cent or 23 per cent, depending upon the calculation used, just because it all comes out of the funds to which we all contribute.
I do not know whether it is the Department of Finance or the Department of National Revenue which determines what goes in and what comes out of the customs tariff schedule, but it is time to move toward dealing with this particular matter. Those people believe they have found a cure for multiple sclerosis by massive doses of megavitamins. Whether that medication is in the form of pills or capsules to be taken orally, or whether it is necessary to administer injections, does not matter. They believe a cure has been found, and they should

not be subjected to the 17.5 per cent customs duty. I should like to see a change made in that area. Perhaps we could receive an amendment during committee of the whole.
I hope some of my colleagues will speak in due course about the fruit and vegetable situation, as well as the need for regional and seasonal adjustments in tariffs to assist the small Canadian fruit producer. On the first day of spring for the past five or six years, I have managed to receive daffodils from my constituency which I made available to all hon. members. I have not done that only to boast about the west coast and its weather. The daffodils are a symbol of something more than the early arrival of spring on the west coast. They are a symbol of the season for fruits and vegetables maturing earlier in the west than elsewhere in Canada.
I cannot see why there should not be a tariff imposition in the west against Mexican tomatoes and California lettuce when Canadian tomatoes and lettuce come on the market. I suppose I could include strawberries and raspberries as well. This tariff imposition would have to move across Canada with the seasons. I do not see why this should not be done. If we can get our strawberries, raspberries, and asparagus from the west to meet the eastern market, why should non-Canadian grown products be allowed into the country? Eventually I hope the government sees the need for encouraging our agricultural producers so that they can live and thrive in the communities of their choice.
It is unbelievable, for example, that the tomato levy does not begin until the Ontario tomatoes come on stream. That levy should become effective when British Columbia tomatoes come on stream. That is what I am requesting. It is part of the symbolism behind the gesture I make on the first day of spring by distributing daffodils. This applies not only to fruit and vegetables, but it applies to flowers as well. Since flowers can be produced in this country, why should we not be protected against imported ones? Sometimes these imported flowers come from as far away as Europe. If these flowers can be grown in Canada, surely that industry should be protected against such invasions.
I should like to refer to Schedule IV of Bill C-48 which deals with item No. 97012-1. It reads as follows:
Costumes or parts thereof, designed or decorated in a manner reflecting a specific ethno-cultural heritage.
This is a good item. I am glad it is included. The portion of duty payable as drawback is 99 per cent. It is an excellent provision, but why should it be limited to the use of bona fide ethno-cultural groups which are recognized as such pursuant to regulations established by order of the governor in council, and which require such costumes for the public manifestation of their ethno-cultural heritage, under such regulations as the minister may prescribe? It is a 99 per cent drawback, rebate or whatever. Why should it be limited to a group applying for this particular drawback? Why should an individual be restricted from applying? I speak with some feeling on this matter, because not long ago I ordered a made-to-measure kilt and was faced with customs duty. I look pretty smart in a kilt.
May 15, 1978

The one thing Scots did not bring to Canada with them was the ability to make kilts. If the material were available, kilts could be manufactured in Canada. Unfortunately the tartan cannot be woven here. One must remember it is a specialized industry. In any event, when I received my kilt I was unable to have the benefit of a drawback because I was an individual. Even if this particular measure had been in effect, I would not have received the 99 per cent drawback on the customs duty I was required to pay on that kilt. I believe the duty was approximately 25 per cent or 30 per cent. In any event, it was somewhat high. A 99 per cent drawback would have been fine. It would have left one per cent. I am prepared to go along with that.
Schedule IV refers to ethno-cultural groups. What about an individual from Greece-


An hon. Member:: The Ukraine.


Donald W. Munro: Yes, people from the Ukraine are affected by this as well. I was thinking of an evzone costume from Greece, which is similar to the kilt. If an individual from Greece wanted an evzone costume, why should he be required to rely on an ethno-cultural group to import it for him? I see the parliamentary secretary is somewhat amused by what I am saying. Perhaps he agrees with me. If schedule IV referred to an ethno-cultural individual, that would be satisfactory. I do not think there would be abuse of this provision. Unfortunately some groups would not be able to bring in costumes from their countries of origin. I am thinking of Latvians, Estonians, and Lithuanians. These people make their own costumes. I do not know if Ukrainians could import their costumes as individuals. The Latvians, Estonians, and Lithuanians make their own costumes because they brought that cultural heritage to Canada with them. I object to the word "groups" being included in schedule IV. Hopefully that idea can be converted into an individual right to import and secure the drawback.
I should like to refer to another item which is not contained in the bill or the schedule. I am referring to the announcement which was made by the Minister of Finance some time in November or December, 1976, at which time he imposed quotas on imported garments and clothing manufactured from man-made fibres. At that time I remember sitting in the chamber and thinking I knew at what he was aiming. He was aiming at articles of clothing made in Korea, Hong Kong, and China. These are made from man-made fibres rather than from natural fibres, and they are manufactured in countries where the wages are not as high as in Canada. These articles have been coming in and flooding the market.
The minister stood in his place and said he was imposing a set of quotas. I thought he had in mind quotas in respect of imported goods, by way of non-tariff items, and this probably refers to the reverse application of the bill. However, I dc think this is relevant. It was my firm conviction, when I heard the minister, that he was aiming at the importation of ma-
Customs Tariff
terials and clothing of man-made fibres from those countries that are able to produce these goods much cheaper than we can here in Canada. However, within a week we found that the quotas were aimed at all types of clothing being imported, including woollens and cottons. This came to our attention as a result of letters we received from what you might call high fashion establishments that import fine woollen materials from Britain, silks from Italy and France, and perhaps cottons to a lesser degree.
This quota imposition gave rise to the creation of what I believe is called a high fashion clothing committee. Some of this importation takes place by firms here in Ottawa. I better not do any commercials by mentioning names, but some firms here do a lot of this importing. They too have been put on quotas based on 1967 imports. Some of these firms find that the acceptance of their quota applications takes so long seasonal sales are lost. Some of these quota applications take months to be cleared. When dealing with clothes for the summer and winter seasons you must place orders six or seven months in advance so that quantities can be made up. Some of these items are specifically made. Some Jaegers items are made in large quantities. These are the kinds of materials and items of clothing which have been subjected to the quotas, unexpectedly, I might add.
We never did really get the minister to admit what his prime objective or target was in this regard. We do not know whether he had in mind man-made fibres and cheap clothing from Korea, Hong Kong, China and other similar countries, or intended that the quotas should include all these other high fashion articles. In any event, all clothing was covered, and the administrative problems created for the merchants of these high fashion clothing are absolutely tremendous. First of all they must get their quotas approved, and then order the materials or the articles of clothing from overseas far enough in advance to obtain those items at the appropriate season. The difficulties created are absolutely unbelievable.
We in this House have heard about a series of difficulties businessmen face in dealing with the masses of forms the government asks them to fill out. My colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling), has described one method of dealing with this multiplicity of government forms, and that is to stamp them all "non applicable". Anyone who is in the business of selling high fashion clothing is not able to do that. He would probably prejudice his future applications for quotas.
These people dealing with high fashion clothes have to take certain steps. They must sort out the items they want and hope that the quota allotment comes back in sufficient time to allow them to order these materials or items from overseas in order that they will still be in style. One of the factors involved in the marketing of high fashion clothing is style, and styles change from one season to the next. A merchant may receive a quota for this fall, and then when applying for a similar quota for the following season may not receive the same quota. How does he deal with that situation? Maybe the quota volume would not be applicable the following fall.

May 15, 1978
Customs Tariff
The quota system announced in November or December of 1976 became cumbersome beyond any intent on the part of the minister. At least I hope it was not his intention to create such a bureaucratic mess deliberately. If it was a deliberate attempt, no minister of the government has ever succeeded so effectively. It is my honest belief that the government did not intend that this should be the case.
It is my belief the government intended this to be a quota system aimed at cheap clothing and material coming into this country, undercutting the cost of Canadian products. The high fashion products of which I speak are just not made in Canada. In my area there is a great demand for these particular items of clothing, most of this demand comes from those who are visitors to this country. Very often these articles are not sold to Canadians. British woollens, for example, and items by Jaegers, are among the items of clothing I have in mind. They are imported from Great Britain mainly for resale to United States travellers in Canada. Those people find they can purchase these articles in Canada, at comparable prices. One of the problems facing these retailers, and it has been created by this quota system, is that they are unable to supply the market.
Was this system really intended to kill this market? There is a market of this nature in my area as well as in Montreal, Winnipeg, and here in Ottawa. Many specialty shops carry these high fashion items. I do not believe the minister was aiming at these items when he made the announcement.
Also included in these high fashion items are articles such as kilts and other ethnocultural costumes. It is my hope that we can amend these schedules in order to get around these obvious difficulties. However, there is nothing more complicated to deal with than tariff schedules, particularly in deciding where an item can be included. Perhaps the officials of the department, or the parliamentary secretary, could assist us in developing the appropriate numerology to cover these items.
I was pleased to note the parliamentary secretary making copious notes when I referred to a number of problems, including those in respect of aircraft, aircraft parts and aircraft engines. He was also making notes when I referred to the stupidity surrounding the making of these rebates and the fact that the rebates are made without interest.
The particular man who has had to buy an engine must pay his $1,100 customs duty on top of the cost of the engine, and may very well have had to go to the bank to raise the money for the purchase. He is not buying it for himself, but rather to fit into either a private aircraft or a commercial aircraft. The commercial aircraft may have farmed out the job to him. For example, it may have been a Pratt and Whitney jet engine for one of the PWA aircraft. Had they done it themselves there would have been no duty, but since the man I have been speaking of is doing it, he must pay duty and get it back on rebate because he is not a licensed carrier.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald W. Munro: In summary, there is the aircraft problem and the megavitamin problem. With respect to the megavitamin problem, I am appealing in the name of people who are afflicted with a frightful disease that immobilizes them and makes it impossible for them to fit into the work force. Thus, there are good grounds for eliminating the customs tax and the sales tax, if that is what it is, on megavitamins. This is, of course, under prescription. I am not saying there should be a blanket withdrawal of the customs tariff.
As has happened so often in the past, there is again an appeal for an imposition affecting seasonal and regional influences. It is fair to say that the Department of National Revenue and the Department of Finance have got hold of the idea that there is a seasonal problem, but they do not seem to have grasped the idea that there is a regional problem. This is because there is a strong agricultural base here in Ontario which gets the favoured treatment, because they believe that when the season has arrived in Ontario it has also arrived in the rest of Canada. Well, the season arrives in Ontario in some cases after it is over in other parts of the country. This is something that Ontario should get into its noodle, that there are other growing areas in the country. The west coast is an example of an area that is favoured by its early growing season.
The ethno-cultural problem, which I favour, should be removed from the group restriction and individuals should be able to import. The quota matter of high fashion clothing- and somebody in this House ought to be able to stand up and say, "That was not our intention and let's get rid of it"-where it affects imports does not concern the high fashion clothing industry we are talking about at home because they are just not made in Canada. There is other good clothing made in Canada, and I wear the clothing that is made here.


Mr. Lalonde:: I hope you can say that.


Donald W. Munro: I certainly do. I look at the labels whenever I buy anything, whether it is food, clothing, and so on, and I buy Canadian and I hope a lot of other people do the same thing. However, when we are talking about high fashion clothing that is brought in to meet the tourist market, why should we not eliminate the customs duty that is imposed on it, and certainly eliminate the quotas?
I have had my say on those five items, and I thank the hon. members for extending my time.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, it is approximately two minutes to five, and with the concurrence of the House, may I call it five o'clock and begin my remarks at eight o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich).)
May 15, 1978



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin)-Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Request for extension of service to small communities; the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes)-Communications-Bell Canada contract with Saudi Arabia; the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan)-Elections-Reason for Prime Minister's announcement.
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.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Notice of motion, item No. 14, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Shall the item stand?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions, whether anyone is here to confirm those discussions or not, to the effect that we might let all of the items stand down to No. 17, and that we might proceed with the resumption of that debate this afternoon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it agreed by unanimous consent that items 14, 13, 3, 7, 9 stand?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Yes, that is agreed.


NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, January 30, consideration of the motion of Mrs. Pigott:
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.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Harquail) who, I believe, spoke for three minutes the last day.
National Capital Commission


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, before continuing with my remarks from January 30 of this year on motion No. 17,1 would like to quote the motion:
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.
Continuing from where I left off on January 30, I find it strange that the hon. member would bring such a motion into this House given the fact that she is at the moment a member of the special committee of the House concerning itself directly with all aspects relating to the National Capital Commission. I am proud of the area that is comprised in the National Capital Commission, and it is something of which all Canadians can be proud. Indeed, any Canadians having had the opportunity to visit the national capital, I am sure are as equally impressed and proud of what we have as I am.
The hon. member who brought in this motion has had an opportunity to express her views on the day-to-day workings of the National Capital Commission in the special committee, and has done so in a very positive way. In the short time that she has been in this House she has made a worth-while contribution as a member of that special committee.
Considering the mandate of the special committee, however, the fact that the NCC is accountable to the government and is required to obtain authority from Treasury Board for its expenditures, and considering the position of the commission, there is no justification for stating that the NCC is not sufficiently accountable. Furthermore, considering the significant improvement in the intergovernmental climate and in the range of programs within the NCR-joint programs such as public transit, pollution abatement, core area revitalization, and environmental improvement-there is no justification for the assertion that consultation and co-operation with other levels of government are lacking.
The hon. member, it seems to me, might have taken the opportunity to withdraw her motion since she has every equal and good opportunity to have her voice and views heard at the special committee which has already accomplished a great deal in the deliberations that have been going on for some considerable period of time. As a matter of interest, in my view the special committee has all but completed its work. It still has to review the reports and material gathered from witnesses, however.
In her short time in this House the hon. member who moved motion No. 17 has brought forward some excellent suggestions to committee about the mechanism and method of approach to accomplish the things she is concerned with such as better control of or input into the day-to-day workings of the commission. I have put some views forward myself in the course of the committee discussions and I have seen and felt some very real frustration about the operations of the NCC because of its

May 15, 1978
National Capital Commission
make-up-because of membership-because of those who have a greater interest within the National Capital Commission-the city of Ottawa,-the city of Hull-the province of Ontario-the province of Quebec and, indeed, the federal government.
It is my view that we must devise some means of bringing in recommendations for a policy that would be considered by all levels of government and that would become law. It is only through legislation that we will have an easy flowing, coordinated implementation of the plans of the National Capital Commission. If we are ever to see these plans implemented in a continuing, orderly fashion, there must be total agreement between all levels of government. As things stand today, the plans could reach a certain stage and then one of the parties concerned might disagree, be that the province of Ontario, the province of Quebec, the municipal governments or the federal government.
The special committee and the National Capital Commission have done good work, and in the coming weeks and months I hope we can agree on a formula that will ensure the smooth implementation of all their planning. When debate is concluded, whether in this House, in the provincial legislatures of Ontario and Quebec, or in the city councils, the point must come when discussion is halted once and for all and we move on the irrevocable implementation of the plans. It is my considered and humble opinion that that is the only way we will see real progress. This is the only assurance of continued action with respect to the implementation of those plans, hours, money, sweat, equity, and everything else that goes into hard work. The commissioners, representing the various provinces and two territories, have brought forward the views of all Canadians as to what they might like to see in order to expand and improve the National Capital Commission. The commission and its chairman have done good work, Mr. Speaker.
I fear that if we continue in the same vein as in the past there is the danger of disagreement, and so we will be back to square one and will have to face starting all over again. I am convinced that until such time as we can devise ways and means of reaching general agreement between all levels of government, and that until such time as we have suitable legislation, we will be subjected to the whim and last minute changes imposed by one level of government or the other.
I notice that the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott) has just entered the chamber so I will briefly restate my comments when I enjoined her to withdraw her motion, and suggested that she might have considered doing that some time ago since she is a member of the special committee. I wanted to state once again, in her presence that she has made a worth-while contribution to the special committee.
Most of the work of the committee is complete. It only remains for the co-chairmen, Senator Marchand and the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart), to review the work that has been done, and for members from this House and from the other place to reach consensus on the official report to this House.
One order agreed to by members of the House was that the special committee should visit Washington. The visit was postponed but, as I understand it, the matter is under review and the organizers are consulting with officials in Washington regarding the details. I am under the impression that once this is completed, and once we have availed ourselves of the opportunity of consultations with the officials in that capital, we will then be in a position to have the special committee consider a full and final report to the House.
With respect to concerns that might be expressed by the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton, as she knows there is a meeting tomorrow morning where the minister and the chairman of the commission, as well as other officials, will be in attendance to answer any and all questions at the time of the consideration of the main estimates. I would recommend to the mover of the motion and other members who have an interest in this matter that they avail themselves of this opportunity of being in attendance at the committee meeting tomorrow morning when the minister and the officials of the NCC will be quite prepared to answer their questions on the subject-


Steve Eugene Paproski: He won't have time to talk about this subject.


Maurice James Harquail: There is one other comment of interest concerning the NCC that I wish to make at this time. The National Capital Commission has something in the order of 1,000 employees and spends approximately $30 million a year. As I have stated earlier, it carries out its work in a very commendable and efficient fashion.


Steve Eugene Paproski: It never pays its taxes to Ottawa.


Maurice James Harquail: Apart from some of the commentary that is coming from someplace in this House, I would just conclude, Mr. Speaker, by stating that there is in existence in the mandate within the special committee-there are other means within the Treasury Board-means whereby the NCC is accountable in every respect to the government. I have no concern in this regard. I am sure other speakers who will follow me this afternoon will have something to offer.


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, during the private members' hour on January 30, 1978, we had before us the following motion which was introduced by the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott) and which read as follows:
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.
Mr. Speaker, the act establishing the National Capital Commission has been in existence since 1958, that is for 20 years. During the period, a lot of things have changed and it is

May 15, 1978

undoubtedly one of the reasons why in the early 70s-I believe it was in 1973-the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) asked Mr. Douglas Fullerton, a former chairman of the National Capital Commission, to look into the structure and the administration of the National Capital Commission.
In 1975, Mr. Fullerton, through the right hon. Prime Minister, tabled his report in the Senate and the House of Commons and in July 1975-July 17, 1975, to be more exact-a Special Joint Committee on the National Capital Region was established and began to sit in 1975. Several witnesses appeared before that committee to make representations, including the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) who was responsible for the National Capital Commission to parliament.
The National Capital Commission was represented at that time by Mr. Edgar Gallant who is now chairman of the Public Service Commission. The representatives of the Ottawa regional community, the Ottawa-Carleton regional municipality and many other witnesses appeared before that committee. In several representations, they blamed the National Capital Commission for interfering in areas which, according to certain witnesses, did not come under the commission, but rather under the provinces or municipalities within the region. They blamed the commission for its local planning process. Mr. Speaker, those who live on both sides of the Ottawa River know quite well that 15, 20 or 25 years ago, regional cities and municipalities had little or no urban planning facilities, and the National Capital Commission was even asked at times to lend them experts in that field.
Mr. Speaker, things are very different today on both sides of the Ottawa River. As I have just mentioned, the Ottawa-Carleton regional municipality is on the Ottawa side and the Outaouais regional community is on the Quebec side. Since the establishment of those two communities, it is much easier for the National Capital Commission representatives to have a dialogue concerning regional planning and other matters.
The National Capital Commission has also been blamed for massive land purchases on the Quebec side. I would like to talk about the Quebec side since I am more familiar with it, but even though certain people accuse the NCC of having made massive land purchases, we know that had the National Capital Commission not purchased this land it might have been bought by foreign interests, as happened in the Templeton area three or four years ago.
When the then representatives of the National Capital Commission came before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates to explain their supplementary estimates, I drew the attention of the public to this matter but I received no reaction. Certain people seemed to think that when the National Capital Commission purchased land on behalf of the Canadian government, it was as if it had been a foreign
National Capital Commission
government. Yes, the money used for the transactions came from taxpayers throughout Canada.
The motion blames the commission for not consulting the municipalities, the cities and the other associations and not co-operating with them. I would like to say that it is now easier to do so. The National Capital Commission has had four chairmen in the last ten years: Mr. Douglas Fullerton, Mr. Edgar Gallant, Mr. Pierre Juneau and the Hon. C. M. Drury.
At this point, I would like to make a digression. I was amazed by the comments of the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott) when she spoke on January 30, 1978. She was referring to certain editorial comments at the time when Mr. Drury was appointed chairman of the National Capital Commission. But, Mr. Speaker, why express doubts when someone who has had political functions takes over other responsibilities? From the outset there seems to be some question as to the ability of this person to be able to meet the new challenges. I gladly join with my colleagues of Hull and Ottawa West with respect to the present incumbent of the chairmanship of the National Capital Commission, the Hon. C. M. Drury. I have known him for several years and he has been among other things Minister of Public Works. He is a resident of the Outaouais region and I am sure he will be able to meet the challenges of the new responsibilities he will be entrusted with.
Apparently, Mr. Speaker, the National Capital Commission is being blamed for various things. Yet we know that the National Capital Commission has also acted positively in a way which is to its credit, however I do not have enough time to mention them all in the course of the short period allotted to me. Nevertheless I hope that the population is familiar with the positive actions of the National Capital Commission as well as its accomplishments on both sides of the Ottawa River. I can think of one right now. Mr. Speaker, you are probably aware that before 1974 or 1975, when a civil servant or a passenger went from Buckingham to Ottawa, he had to pay twice. It was the same for a person from Ottawa who wanted to go to the Quebec side. Through the financial co-operation of the National Capital Commission and both communities, these passengers now have to pay only once.
The National Capital Commission also took part in road system improvements on the Quebec side on behalf of the Government of Canada, namely the widening of Maloney Boulevard and the building of the Portage and Draveurs bridges. I also hope that current problems over the construction of the water treatment plant in Templeton will be settled as soon as possible. The Government of Canada, through the National Capital Commission, is prepared to share the construction cost of this plant in Templeton.
Most everyone is aware of the existing problem. It was in 1977 that the prime contractor for the construction of the project, namely the Quebec government, called for tenders; the lowest bidder was a company with an office in Ottawa; for the
5426

May 15, 1978
National Capital Commission
reasons we are aware of, construction has yet to start. Again on Thursday, the Minister of State for Urban affairs, the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), assured the Quebec Outaouais population that the federal government is still willing to help finance the construction of a sewage treatment plant. We know also that work has started on the regional main that will run from Aylmer to the plant at Templeton.
I mentioned that several witnesses appeared before the special joint committee for the national capital area. Mr. Gallant, who at that time was chairman of the National Capital Region, had tabled a document on the capital in the future. At that time it was considered a working paper. I for one opposed the development axis, on the Quebec side, being run towards the west only; other witnesses criticized the document saying the NCC seemed to concentrate its development on the two downtown centers, that is that of Ottawa and that of Hull. It seems that the NCC has since changed its mind.
Mr. Juneau, then its chairman, indicated that the main impact would be felt mainly toward the east, that is the city of Gatineau. It is understandable why I am pleased with that change of attitude. I have the honour of representing the riding of Gatineau here in the House of Commons. The most important community in that riding is the city of Gatineau. Another recommendation of the motion of the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton advocates setting up a special joint committee. I share the views of my colleague for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) on that score. I am not in favour of a special joint committee but I would be agreeable to a new committee of the House of Commons. Or again, why not use the standing committees we already have? The National Capital Commission's experts could appear before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs to explain their estimates or else we could refer its annual report to that committee or to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates for example.
Following an understanding between the House leaders, we could refer its annual report to one of those committees. But this should not be done when the committees are already examining estimates, but as you already know it is considered that by May 31 the estimates have already been referred back to the House. So these committees could put questions to the representatives of the National Capital Commission and even ask people from the outside, either representatives of the Outaouais regional community or representatives of the Ottawa-Carleton community to appear before them to give their point of view and explain to the members what aspects, in the actions of the National Capital Commission during the year covered by the annual report, invite criticisms.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the committee I mentioned earlier and which was established July 27, 1978 and reinstated December 13, 1977 will be back in operation. Because of events which may have been anticipated, the members of this

committee had to go to Washington to get first-hand information on the operation of the federal district of Washington. But now that things are back to normal, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the committee will start operating again, that the members who had to go to Washington will be able to attend and that we will be in a position to submit a report to Parliament. But in order to do so, Mr. Speaker, the 90-day delay for submitting a report to the House of Commons as granted under a motion will have to be extended.


Mrs. Jean E. Pigott (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont) said that we criticized the appointments of Mr. Drury and Mr. Juneau. The point was the politicization of the role of chairman of the National Capital Commission.
Mr. Juneau is a defeated candidate. Mr. Drury was a member of this House, but he had also been appointed a northern affairs commissioner. He is turning out to be a part-time chairman of the National Capital Commission. We are concerned about the fact that 40 per cent of the land holdings in this region-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member has already spoken on the motion, and I would like her to come to her point of order.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: My point is that we do not criticize Mr. Drury or Mr. Juneau personally. We criticize the way this government deals with the chairmanship of the National Capital Commission.


Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I have been a member of this House for almost ten years, and I am amazed at how the proceedings here are carried on. In spite of many of us having tried to effect changes by making suggestions and so forth, we are still going along in the same way. I give as an example the placing of business for private members' hour. We did not know until today that this subject was going to come up. It is the same thing every day. This is the private members' hour, and we insist on saying that we will suppress a certain amount of business or jump over a certain amount of business "at the request of the government". At the request of the government be damned. This is private members' hour, not a government business hour. I wish that could be understood by those who organize the business of the House.
Here we are in the national capital and the subject of the National Capital Commission is before us. Hardly anyone is in the public galleries. If the people of this area knew we were discussing this matter, I suggest that the galleries would be full because there is great interest in this subject among the people of this area. But how would they know we are discussing this when we did not even know that? We did not know it until this afternoon.
We have an order paper, which is an agenda. Every business and organization has an agenda. Our agenda is so vague that
May 15, 1978

rarely do hon. members know what is going to take place throughout the day, much less during the private members' hour. On Mondays we discuss notices of motions, but on a given Monday which notice of motion? We pretty well have to wait until we come to the end of the wire before we know which notice of motion will come before us.
We have before us a perfectly good motion which is of interest to many people, yet the people of Canada do not have the opportunity to tune in or come to this chamber to hear the debate.
I do not know whether in my dying days as a parliamentarian 1 can make my voice heard. It certainly has not been listened to very much with respect to the procedures of this House, in regard to which we are still in the last century. We still have not brought our business up to date, in spite of the fact that even the Mother of Parliaments has gone well ahead of us. We remain more British than the British.
I should like to come now to the essence of the motion before us and to commend the hon. member for Ottawa-Carle-ton (Mrs. Pigott) for having brought it forward. It contains a number of things about which the majority of the people on the special committee over the past few years would have echoed the same sentiments. I am afraid I cannot agree with my hon. friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Harquail), who has taken the position that there is enough accountability for the National Capital Commission. I am afraid I cannot agree with that. I do not like to disagree with my hon. friend, but the fact is that he, being a parliamentary secretary and in those exalted realms, must now not criticize too much or even seem to criticize the government.
I do not think it is a question of criticizing the government when I say that there is not sufficient accountability on the part of the NCC. The government agreed to set up a special committee to look into these matters. Hon. members will recall that in the first session of this parliament such a committee was set up. Throughout that first session the committee did a great deal of work and, as the House knows, I have the honour to be the co-chairman of that committee.
The committee went through what I refer to as kitchen work. We did the kind of work which had to be done but which perhaps was not very interesting to some hon. members because of the fact that it was tedious, laborious and repetitious. However, it was the kind of work which had to be done before we could go on to consider anything else. We had to listen to briefs. We had to read over many briefs and hear the points of view of as many groups and individuals as possible in order to apprise ourselves of what will be the need over the next 25 years or longer in the national capital area.
We have gone over this, and it is old history now but, unfortunately, during the second session the committee was not called together again. As a result a great deal of time was lost. Finally, during this present session we were called together again. The committee has tried to pick up where it left off and to review what had been studied in the first session. As a result, as has been mentioned by some of our colleagues here
National Capital Commission
today, the committee is at work and is getting ready to prepare a report. In my view we could have used a lot more time in that committee. For this reason I rather like the idea of having a permanent committee to consider matters regarding the National Capital Commission, as suggested by the hon. member whose motion is before us.
I think it is essential to have a continuous process whereby the National Capital Commission reports to this House. This, of course, pre-supposes that the national capital remains in its present form or in a form similar to its present form. In our committee part of our work is to look at the whole governmental structure. We would like to consider, for example, whether the national capital area should be truly a national capital district independent of other governments. We would like to study whether it should be a state or a province and whether it should be represented by local politicians.
These are questions which were before us and these are the questions we wanted to consider. If we are talking about the National Capital Commission in its present form, there is no doubt in my mind that it should report to parliament on a regular basis. In the past, whenever NCC representatives came before us only a perfunctory examination was made of the commission's affairs. There has been very little accountability to the elected representatives.
The hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton mentions in her motion that the powers exercised by the NCC have been arbitrary. I would not say that the NCC acts in an arbitrary way and simply leave it at that, but I will say that the NCC has acted in arbitrary ways in the past. I am not saying it continues to do so. Indeed, as a result of the establishment of our committee and of the fact that awareness of what the NCC is all about has become so much greater, there has been an increased degree of co-operation and less arbitrary action on the part of some public servants. However, there have been many instances in the past of arbitrary action by the commission. Such cases were brought home to us by various witnesses who appeared before the committee.
When the special committee continues its work over the several months in which this parliament continues to exist, those who have not had the opportunity to visit another capital will be able to do so. As has been mentioned, the committee was to have visited Washington but the trip had to be cancelled because of work here in the House. I would hope that in the near future members who have not done so will avail themselves of the opportunity which will be given them to visit Washington and examine the structure there.
Although Washington is a national capital in the true sense, independent of other governments, there are some similarities to our situation here. The federal district is set up independent of other governments, but in practice it is not really independent. One of the things I admire greatly is the consultative process they have adopted. They have set up what is called a council of governments-they refer to it as COG. It is a voluntary organization inasmuch as people serve on it without
80038-S3VS

May 15, 1978
National Capital Commission
remuneration. Through this mechanism the viewpoints of various groups in the community can be put forward on a continuing basis.
I have always believed there should be much greater input from elected representatives whether of this House or of other governments. It seems to me that if the people have chosen certain individuals to represent them, those individuals should be given the opportunity to express their points of view on the governing of the national capital as well as with regard to other matters coming within their mandate.
I commend the hon. member for bringing this subject before us for debate. It could be said, as was said by the hon. member for Restigouche, that this is the kind of subject we should be discussing in committee. But what is wrong with bringing it into the House as well? It does not interfere with the work of the committee in any way. In fact it might have a beneficial effect in calling the attention of more people to the importance of what is going on in the national capital committee. It is not the kind of motion to which one says yea or nay, and for this reason I do not know whether it would do a great deal of good if it were to come to a vote. But whether we agree with everything in the motion or not, we should all realize that a body such as the national capital commission has got to be accountable to the elected people one way or another. And evidence has come before us to show that certainly in the past this has not been the case.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ralph Wesley Stewart: Hon. members on both sides, I am sure, will agree with that. I would certainly like to see this subject pursued further, if not here, then in our committee. Let us examine it more deeply and try to produce a formula which will please the various points of view. I know there are some who think we should establish a federal district independent of the provinces. Then there is a whole range of opinions, even those who favour maintaining the status quo. Surely there must be some way in which we could find a compromise which would be satisfactory to the majority so that a more efficient way of running the national capital is found.
It seems to me that with the numbers of governments presently involved it is not possible to have a smooth running capital, an opinion which coincides with that of Mr. Fullerton who in his study said that we are overgoverned. It is time we found a way of cutting down the number of governments involved. Some sort of consultative process is the answer. I always find it amazing that when a meeting is held and a decision is taken with only half the members present, those who are absent are upset about it. But if the same decision is made with all the members present, they are all happy about it. This simply means that people like to be consulted. They want to be able to make their contribution. This is true of the national capital committee just as it is of an other committee or organization.
I commend this to you, Mr. Speaker-that the motion presented by the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton be accept-

ed and that we refer the content of it to the special committee so that we, in committee, may get on with the job.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis William (Frank) Maine: Mr. Speaker, in response to some of the issues raised by the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott) on January 30, 1978, may I say that I understand she has received an extensive briefing by the staff of the commission. I should like to point out that conditions in the so-called work ghettos supposedly created by the federal government are improving daily, in particular in the Hull area where the opening of the Place du Centre and of the skating rink at Place du Portage greatly humanized the downtown area.
The National Capital Commission has made a major effort to respond to the concerns expressed by the Auditor General. As to the perceived differences between the planning proposals of the regional municipalities and those of the National Capital Commission, it has become clear that many potential issues have disappeared because of the changed growth prospects for the area. Now we know the capital area will not grow as rapidly as in the past. Continuity of the National Capital Commission management has been provided in part by the composition of its advisory committee on planning, design and property with Canada-wide representation.
I should like to reply to several aspects raised in the motion by outlining the accountability of the National Capital Commission, thereby refuting the suggestion that it is not sufficiently accountable. The National Capital Commission is, under the terms of the National Capital Act, the agent of the Government of Canada, charged with the responsibility to prepare plans for, and assist in, the development, conservation and improvement of the national capital region in order that the nature and character of the seat of the Government of Canada may be in accord with its national significance.
Since the NCC is not a local government, it is not directly accountable to a local electorate but, rather, is accountable through the government to parliament, which must approve the commission's capital budget.
Nation-wide input into policymaking by the NCC is ensured by its commissioners, who are chosen from every province in Canada. Strong local representation on the commission is provided by the requirement that, in addition to members from the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, at least two members be chosen from the city of Ottawa, one from the city of Hull, as well as two members from municipalities other than Ottawa and Hull within the National Capital Region.
All of the commission's significant expenditures must be approved by Treasury Board and governor in council, which ensure the strict accountability of the NCC to the government for its financial transactions.
The government's recently issued white paper on Crown corporations outlines a series of proposals which essentially
May 15, 1978

seeks to clarify and develop the relationships between Crown corporations, the government and parliament in the areas of policy and financial control, direction and accountability. The proposals also seek to clarify the roles of the governor in council, the appropriate minister, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), as well as the managers of Crown corporations. These proposals maintain intact the links of accountability, control and direction to the government and parliament and leave untouched the present situation whereby Crown corporations are ultimately accountable to parliament through a minister of the Crown representing the ministry as a whole. The proposals, in clarifying and making more effective these relationships, are more of an evolutionary than revolutionary step. As applied to the National Capital Commission, these proposals should lead to a clearer relationship between it and parliament, and therefore an even higher degree of accountability than exists at present. The National Capital Commission has reviewed the white paper and is in agreement with its aims and objectives.
There remains a need for a certain degree of independence of the commission from the regular administrative structures of the federal government, commensurate with its status as a Crown corporation. This independence assists in the businesslike management of the commission's extensive real estate holdings, as well as ensuring the continuity essential to planning and developing the capital. Thus it enables the commission to maintain a long term perspective on the development, conservation and improvement of the national capital region.
1 should like to say a few words concerning the aspects of intergovernmental co-ordination in the national capital region, which is another area criticized by the motion. The new spirit of co-operation between the federal government and local authorities in the national capital region is witnessed by the meeting recently held between federal cabinet ministers, the chairman of the NCC, and the executive committee of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, which dealt in a frank manner with the thorny question of grants in lieu of taxation. The meeting participants were all agreed, while differences might remain, that considerable progress had been made toward a resolution of this question. The meeting is to be repeated three times a year to discuss matters of mutual concern.
In spite of the obvious difficulties inherent in relations with the government of Quebec at this time, the NCC is confident that important projects, such as the sewage treatment plant and Quebec road network, will proceed in the near future. The National Capital Commission also recently concluded an agreement with the city of Hull to exchange various parcels of land to permit the joint development of certain federal and city projects, such as the development of Parc Fontaine and the completion of the Parc Lineaire. The NCC is working closely with other levels of government and the general public in the planning and development of many projects, such as LeBreton Flats, Rideau Centre, and the Gatineau Park development plan. The commission has participated in the regional munici-
Combines
pality of Ottawa-Carleton's rapid transit study, and there are plans to conclude an agreement with RMOC to reserve certain of its parkway corridors for the construction of rapid transit facilities.
Negotiations have been completed between the commission and the two regional transit commissions for an agreement which will provide them with a subsidy of $1.3 million in 1978. The NCC is co-operating with RMOC and the Commercial and Industrial Development Corporation of Ottawa-Carleton in a study of ways of softening the impact of the decentralization program and the Hull relocation program on downtown Ottawa.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being six o'clock p.m., I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m..
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I understand there has been an order of the House to revert to motions at this time for the purpose of allowing the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) to table a document.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2) I should like to table copies in both official languages of the report of the Royal Commission on Corporate Concentration.

May 15, 1978
5430_____________________________________
Customs Tariff



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien that Bill C-48, to amend the Customs Tariff and to amend an act to amend the Customs Tariff, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.
William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, I should like to participate in this debate on Bill C-48, to amend the customs tariff. If one were just to read the headlines of newspapers during the last week, one would see the dilemma facing many people in the business world today, particularly those involved in manufacturing. For example, if a person read the Toronto Star he would see the headline "350,000 jobs may be lost at world trade talks." There is then a statement made by some labour leaders indicating that six of them are flying to Geneva next week for a meeting with our chief negotiator, Mr. Rodney Grey, in order to discuss what they perceive to be a disaster for manufacturing industries in Canada.
If you read the Ottawa Citizen of a day later you will note that the man who arranged for these labour leaders to go to Geneva was Mr. Warren. The article urged Canadians not to fear the GATT Conference. This represents the centre of the problem or the dilemma they are facing. The chief negotiator suggests that we should not be afraid of what is going on at GATT, but the labour leaders are not convinced and find it necessary to send these people to Geneva to talk with our negotiators there and to determine what they can do to present their case.
We had a meeting with Rodney Grey, our chief negotiator. I believe it was the first meeting he has had with parliamentarians since he has been at Geneva. This meeting was arranged by the minister's parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas (Mr. Lumley). We very much appreciate the efforts he made in having Mr. Grey appear at a luncheon meeting with members of the committee of finance of this House.
Mr. Grey did not tell us very much. The meeting reminded me very much of a meeting some members of my party had with Jake Warren a couple of months ago. At our request he met with a few of us. We heard a lot of words but nothing very much that was new. He spoke for about 45 minutes and answered questions for about 15. He gave overly long answers, and then unavoidably departed to attend a very urgent meeting at some other place.
That is an example of the kind of contact we have had about this matter. I can remember standing in this House on numerous occasions asking various ministers of finance-and there has been quite an array of them in the last few years-about what is going on at Geneva. They have all given answers which would lead us to believe that Mr. Grey and his officials who are at Geneva conducting the negotiations will look into

matters. The ministers have told us they cannot give us details because these things are secret. The government feels the details are secret and they do not wish to give away our trade positions, thus letting the world know what we are doing.
When Mr. Grey came here we asked him about these negotiations, how he was going about them and what he was doing, and he said: "Really I do not do anything but negotiate and the points are all given to me by the Minister of Finance." This is typical of some of the confusion that goes back and forth. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), his people and various ministers have told us that while Mr. Grey and his officials are doing the negotiating they cannot tell us very much. Mr. Grey, however, tells us he takes his instructions from the Minister of Finance.
This confusion is causing a great deal of concern in the business community. Indeed, several people I know in the business community have approached me, as they have various members of my party, and I am sure some members on the government side, and asked us outright what is going on at Geneva. They have been over there and all they get is a press briefing. I talked to the president of a large multinational corporation, and he could not find out what was going on in the Canadian negotiations. He finally decided the best approach would be for him to go to his parent company in the United States and ask them if they could find out from the American negotiators what the Canadian negotiators were doing. This is a ridiculous way of going about it.
When we read stories that agricultural exports would skyrocket but machinery and equipment industries would be a casualty, this has to be of concern to the manufacturing industries. That is the point I want to make here today. It is a terrible game that is being played and it is much like Catch 22. The minister says that Mr. Grey and his people are doing the negotiating and Mr. Grey says that he is only carrying out the instructions of the Department of Finance.
You would have to ask, in the face of that, why these six labour leaders are going over to Geneva. What is the purpose of their going there? Where is the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro)? He must certainly know what is going on and what the Minister of Finance instructs the negotiator in Geneva to do. Would it not be more logical for the Minister of Labour to arrange a meeting with these labour leaders and somebody in the Department of Finance so as to have their fears allayed? But no, the game is played and Mr. Warren, who tells us not to be worried about what is going on at GATT, arranges for these people to go over to Geneva when it all could have been looked after here in Canada. As is usual, the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing, but that is nothing new.
There is a real crisis in our manufacturing industry, and it stems from the introduction of the DISC program in the United States. Under that legislation, an American corporation taking part in the program has the facility of being able to retain 50 per cent of its earnings on exports tax free at the pleasure of the President. In fact, what the President has done
May 15, 1978

and what the United States government has done is provide interest-free, tax-free working capital in the form of tax funds to American corporations. The difficulty is that Canada has never really responded to that legislation. We have no alternative for it, and as a result over a period of years we have seen a number of companies that were in Canada and manufacturing here look at the DISC program and the relative tax breaks the United States have over Canada and decide that their best bet is to move their plant to the United States and take advantage of this program.
When the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas and myself were down in Washington in January we heard the American government officials say that the President would like to cancel the DISC program. The President may, but whether the Congress will cancel it is something else again. At a time when Canada is looking for more investment from the United States, when we and the Americans are seeking more employment and they are seeking to wipe out a trade deficit, whether they are going to upset the DISC program remains to be seen.
Another program that will have as much impact as the DISC program is the tax proposals being put forward by President Carter in which the profits of overseas subsidiaries of American corporations are taxed in the United States. The object here is to repatriate those companies and those jobs back to the United States to create more employment there and help their trade deficit problem. So the net effect of the DISC program and this new proposal of President Carter's, if it is accepted, will be the loss of jobs to Canadians.
There is a further problem which will affect Canada and it is a serious one. It concerns a case presently in the U.S. supreme court that has to do with tariffs, and it could drastically affect Canada. This is the Zenith television case, and the Germans, French and Japanese call it a "trade time bomb" because that is how critical it is. The details behind this case are somewhat complicated but I think I can simplify it. In most western countries and in Japan there is a value added tax or a retail sales tax, and if you buy something you pay the tax on it. But if you export that product you get a rebate on the tax you have paid. What Zenith has said to the United States tariff board is that this rebate in fact is a bounty. This is the wording that appears in their 1895 tariff act.
The case is so critical that Zenith appeared before the tariff board and they turned them down. They then appealed and the matter went to a higher court where it was upheld unanimously by the three judges. The treasury department in the United States then appealed that decision and it has gone all the way up to the supreme court where it has been heard by the nine judges there. What will it do to Canada and these other nations if it is upheld by the supreme court? It would mean there would be a countervailing duty of 12 per cent in the United States upon any product of which a 12 per cent sales tax is charged in Canada. It would mean that most Japanese products-it does not really concern us, but it is all part of the same thing-such as Japanese sporting goods, would bear a 30 per cent countervailing tariff, cameras 16 per cent, French luxury items 33 per cent, wine 17 per cent, most German
Customs Tariff
products 11 per cent, the Netherlands' products 18 per cent, and goods from Canada 12 per cent.
We can sit back and say the Americans would not allow this to happen. I can tell the House that U.S. Steel has filed a brief in the supreme court as has Ford Motor Company. U.S. Steel has said, "Go ahead, we would like you to put a countervailing duty on European steel coming in from the common market countries because that is one of our difficulties; we cannot compete with the rebate they get when they export that steel." The Ford Motor Company has asked for an exemption from their own foreign subsidiary shipping back to the United States, but the Ford company has urged the supreme court to retain or apply a countervailing duty against cars manufactured by other than U.S. companies.
I have mentioned these concerns because these are the things that businessmen are reading about. This, plus the general confusion in the country regarding GATT, our tariff situation and customs, is part of the difficulty we face. It is part of our employment problem, part of our inflation problem and part of our trade problem. This is one of the difficulties we must address in the months ahead.
I know there are some businessmen in the House but I do not know how many have had to sit around a board table and try to make decisions on situations such as this. As the article I referred to pointed out, the machinery and equipment business is supposed to go down the drain. Last year there was a trade deficit of about $4 billion in general machinery. That is, we imported $4 billion more that we exported. In other words, Mr. Speaker, there is a $4 billion market in general machinery available to us. I want to know why something is not done about it. It is a very significant market.
Last weekend I read an article which said that Westing-house and General Electric are fighting over the light bulb market of $200 million and are spending millions of dollars to produce a new shaped bulb. It is a $200 million market and they are ready to spend millions to get it. What I am talking about is the $4 billion machinery market in Canada.
In white goods alone-washing machines, dryers, refrigerators and so on-our deficit last year was $970 million. We imported $970 million more in that line than we exported. That, too, is a very significant market and I suggest we could make a good proportion of those products in this country. There is no need to have one million unemployed. The application of the customs tariff is very uneven across the country.
Some months ago a group of people from Winnipeg came to Ottawa to complain that they were paying a different rate of duty on automotive products imported from the United States from Ontario, which in turn was paying a different rate from Quebec.
At any business convention the conversation is about differences in trading practices. The application of tariffs is uneven not because of any tomfoolery but because of different interpretations of the act. That is why the businessmen came from Winnipeg to talk about it. Because of the tariff on their

May 15, 1978
Customs Tariff
product, they were losing business to people in Ontario who could bring the same thing in from the United States through Windsor or Niagara Falls at a different rate. That is not right, Mr. Speaker.
The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce set up a machinery board to give remissions on duty and we have been having difficulties with it. I could speak for four hours on the misapplication of the act. A duty is charged on a product because someone says they are manufacturing it in Canada but the board does not check back later to see whether they are still manufacturing it. Sometimes it is only a few months before the manufacturer ceases production but the duty is still applicable. This is the sort of nonsense that goes on.
I am just appalled at the lack of co-operation and information given to members of parliament in regard to the GATT negotiations. Surely at least one of the recent ministers of finance must have felt that it was important to have the support of this House on such a complicated matter. If members were well briefed they could talk to businessmen in their communities about the GATT. We are all invited to speak to business seminars around the country-at least members of my party are. I do not know about members on the other side; people do not want to hear from Liberals. There are no politics in tariffs. We should be able to explain our negotiating position to the business world, but all that the last four ministers of finance have given us is mumbo-jumbo.
When Mr. Grey went to Geneva, a cocktail party was given for him. He was reckoned to be the greatest thing since sliced bread. I think he turned out to be the best civil servant for skiing in the whole country. The government has lost the opportunity to inform the business community where we stand on GATT. Every time I go back to my constituency I am confronted by businessmen asking about what is going on at the negotiations.
When I was a boy a company in my area made vacuum cleaners. Not one vacuum cleaner is manufactured in Canada today. That factory in Hamilton employed 1,500 people. When we think of the number of houses built in the last 25 or 30 years, the broadloom used in those houses, in factories and offices, we must ask why not one vacuum cleaner is manufactured in Canada today. The last company to manufacture them closed last spring because its American parent underbid on a large order to a chain outlet in Canada. That is what is happening.
Business people say that when they talk to officials in Ottawa they are told that one of the casualties of the GATT negotiations will be the electrical appliance business. Yet we have a trade deficit of $970 million and what are we doing about it?
Then there is the matter of communications equipment. Even with all the crying the NDP does about Northern Telecom, there is a deficit in communications equipment of $1,200 million. There is hardly any group of products in which we do not have a sizeable trade deficit. I think the smallest deficit is about $50 million for railway equipment. Everything else is in the hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. To me

that indicates a market. If you talk to any businessman about business he will ask what the market is, and if you say there is a billion dollar market he will get pretty excited.
I get pretty discouraged, Mr. Speaker, about our one million unemployed when I think of our negotiators, many of whom have had no business experience whatsoever. If they have a callus on their hand it must have been transplanted. Officials in the Department of Finance tell us that this industry must go and that industry must go. All they can talk about is economies of scale. That has been the buzz word. In the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce the buzz word is "rationalization"-you have to rationalize everything.
In 1972 the minister of industry, trade and commerce of the day was talking about the sectoral approach. In 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977 and the other day we heard it again. That period encompasses four ministers and six deputy ministers, and we are still studying the sectoral approach to our industry. My God, they are negotiating in Geneva on a sectoral approach-


An hon. Member:: It is obscene.


William James Kempling: It is obscene, but not in the way the hon. member is suggesting. That is the difficulty that we have. We have people who are making these decisions at a high level in the bureaucracy who really do not know. I have sat on boards of directors and I have sat with businessmen during the past two or three years while the GATT negotiations have been heating up. These negotiations are about three years behind time; they are about three years late from when they should have been completed.
I have listened to these businessmen and they have said that they do not know whether to expand their plants or not. They have said that they have been confronted by a terrible dilemma by listening to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) when he suggested last summer in Toronto that if people did not get off their butts and invest that perhaps the government would invest in industry. A little later someone said to me: "I heard the Prime Minister tell us that the difficulty with Canadians is that we are spending too much." Then the Minister of Finance came along and told us to spend more in his last budget. At the same time these negotiations are continuing in Geneva. People do not know whether to expand, to contract, to go into business, to buy more machinery, or to wait until the GATT negotiations are completed, if they are ever completed. They just do not know what to do. That is all part of the floating and bobbing and weaving that is going on in our economy today. I think it is a shame that we cannot have more precise information.
We must consider as well the non-tariff barriers which we know are a difficulty in Geneva. This time bomb trade I was talking about earlier is a sort of non-tariff barrier. There are others and we know they are all very difficult. Mr. Grey said that there were not too many difficulties with the tariffs per se, the difficulties were with the non-tariff barriers. We can see a
May 15, 1978

growing feeling of protectionism in the European countries. I would have to be convinced that the Europeans will open up their agricultural markets to the Canadians. I will never believe that.
Some time ago I did a study when I had nothing better to do of the agricultural distribution in France. After going through that exercise I can assure the House that if France ever gives way and allows their agricultural market to open up to Canadians, then it will be a raw day.
We have to look ahead now and consider what will happen if there is an impasse at Geneva. Where do we go from there? Do we continue or form some sort of broader trading agreement with the United States whereby we can try to even up some of our tariffs and divide some of the production? Should we renegotiate the auto pact or have another close look at the auto pact? Maybe we can extend it into some other area. We will have to examine that. While a lot of people believe that something will come out of the GATT conference, the current opinion that I have gathered from people who have been there is that if there is any settlement made it will be a political settlement. In other words, political leaders will have to knock the heads of people at the meetings and say: "This is the way it is going to be". Of course, the political leadership we have in this country places Canada in a great deal of jeopardy.
Those are concerns we have as we progress with Bill C-48. Later I will go into this bill clause by clause and discuss some of these individual items. No doubt this bill will pass in due course. There seems to be no reason to hold it up. However, this is a good opportunity for us to express our concerns. We can indicate to the government opposite that there are people in this House who are knowledgeable in the trade field and who should be brought into the trade discussions. We should be told more of what is going on so that we can do our job effectively as members of parliament and also make a contribution to those negotiations.


Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, like my colleague the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kem-pling) I take this opportunity to put on the record a few comments concerning Bill C-48, an act to amend the customs tariff.
These hours in the history of Canada are very important. I wonder if many Canadians realize the onus and the weight that is on the shoulders of the negotiators in the Tokyo Round of the Geneva General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs as it concerns the standard of living that is ahead for all of us in Canada. The current GATT negotiations which have been in place since 1973 are probably one of the most fundamental and important negotiations that are going on in Canada's history, and will determine well into the next decade the standard of living and the nature that Canadian life will take. They will determine the extent of growth in the g.n.p. and, in general, the position that we will be taking in the industrialized world. They involve a progressive dismantling of barriers to trade and will establish the framework in which such trade will be conducted.
Customs Tariff
We are negotiating tariff levels, a proposed elimination, and a reduction of barriers. We are negotiating proposed codes of international conduct. We are concerned about the technical standards that are imposed by the various nations negotiating in GATT. I might say this involves about 95 per cent of the trading world. It is only the People's Republic of China, the U.S.S.R. and a few Middle East countries that are not involved in these negotiations. We are dealing with and are concerned with government procurement policies, both here and in other countries. We are dealing with basic rules involving subsidies.
My colleague the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling) described the DISC program in the United States.
I know personally of transport subsidies which interfere with proper trade. Countervailing tariffs are another matter which give us very serious concern in these negotiations.
The bureaucrats who carry this weight in the negotiations have talked extensively, I understand, with many associations in Canada. The input into these negotiations has been pretty much one way. They have talked to various associations in agriculture, the Horticultural Association, the Canadian Food Processors Association, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. All of these groups have had their input into the matters that we need to discuss in these negotiations. There have been interdepartmental committees at work. As I said, I do not think there is anything going on that will have a greater effect on our lives tomorrow and well into the eighties and nineties.
The tentative lists of these agreements have been tabled in Geneva. They indicate the specific concessions in each field that each country wants to be negotiated. These include both tariff and non-tariff measures. We are told that these lists should remain confidential. I question the validity of that. I am sure the negotiators on behalf of the industries in the United States are not kept from further input during these trade-off sessions. I do not know why the people and industry of Canada should be held under a cloak of secrecy in matters as important as the GATT negotiations now going on.
One of the serious criticisms that has to be made is the one way or diode nature of the inputs. A lot went in. Nothing is feeding back. The people in the industry of Canada who are vitally concerned, and the associations vitally concerned, should be part and parcel of the amendments to these negotiations. I would like to see us improve in matters of this importance the consultative process in the country so that we can share in, and perhaps remove some of, the burden that is on these negotiators.
I spent many years in the farm community. One example was brought to my attention by consumers in my constituency whom you would think would normally be concerned about the purchasing power of their spending dollar. Their priority concern is the condition of Canadian agriculture. That was quite a surprise.
5434

May 15, 1978
Customs Tariff
I started to read up on this subject and the plight of Canadian agriculture, particularly the fruit and vegetable industry. I found that the former minister of finance, twice removed, was expressing concern on this point. He pointed out the diminishing level of protection against imports, particularly as it affected fruits and vegetables. He also stated that the existing level of tariff structure could not provide sufficient protection for our agriculture industry.
This problem started in 1971. It did not affect just agriculture. Something fell into place. Something started to happen whereby the end products of Canadian manufacturers started to go into a strong deficit position. When a trend starts in 1971 and the government hopes and dreams it will be cyclical right up until today, when there is no chance of that problem being cyclical in fact, then there is something seriously wrong.
Can the government give us any answers as to what started going wrong? Was it the non-tariff trade barriers put in place by the United States? Was it DISC? Was it the Benson tax act that started to remove the decision-making base for Canadian industry and Canadian businessmen? What started to happen in 1971 that has delivered us into the very serious trade deficit position we now have?
As the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth stated, there is about $970 million worth of white goods in a deficit position because they are no longer being manufactured in Canada. You would think that in the heartland of the industrial sector of Canada technology could be put into place. Surely there are some investment incentives to keep that type of industry and work force going in Canada. However, that is not the way it is. Something is tragically and basically wrong in this country.
For the past year I have been deeply involved in this House trying to point out, not only before an anti-dumping tribunal but to the House, that it is not just a bilingual problem in Canada that is causing our unity problems, it is a regional problem. Where I live on the west coast, there is proximity to the Pacific rim trading countries such as Japan. We trade north and south with the west coast of the United States. We deal with all of the Asian countries. It is a market unto itself.
You cannot look at Canada from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean as a single market. You cannot put in place anti-dumping tribunal rulings to protect a single producer here in the industrial heartland of Canada. At no time we on the west coast fought against or argued against proper anti-dumping procedures. However, some markets are injured and others are not. When we have a blanket policy putting in an antidumping barrier, such as on wide flange steel beams, we do irreparable harm to the steel fabricating industry on the west coast. We threaten 1,500 to 2,000 jobs there. The normal, traditional, historic market for the steel fabricating industry in British Columbia is lost. Where does it go? It goes into the heartland in the central industrial sector of Canada. We say that just is not fair. That type of law or legislation is obsolete. Somehow or other we have to get the ear of the government about this. Otherwise it will flair up into a situation that will compound the problems that Canadian confederation faces today.
[Mr. Huntington.)
We do not go against GATT if we recognize there is more than one market in Canada. In fact, if GATT is there for the purpose of liberalizing trade and if we are to acknowledge there are markets in Canada where injury exists and at the same time a market in Canada where injury does not exist, we are then within the spirit of GATT and need no amendment to it. Surely we are within the liberalization principles of GATT.
I urge those on the government side who are responsible for this regional inequity to hear the call from the west. Canada cannot continue to exist strictly for centralist industries and interests. Those industries have to be spread. There has to be an open spirit of negotiation. We in the west are pleading for that. I have just suggested one of the ways to resolve the problem for us there.
Something else that troubles me is the lack of in-depth marketing studies that precedes very serious decisions on the part of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. They react to lobbying from certain specific interests. They put quotas in place. However, when you telephone to ask what they have done in the way of an over-all market study, studying spinoffs and negative effects as well as the positive effects of putting in quotas, you are quite shocked at their reply. They say they do not know because they have not asked those questions, they have not talked to that segment of the industry.
When all hell breaks loose and the world caves in around these people, when their offices are filled with protests and they do not have the trained manpower to handle the situation, they wonder what hit them. That kind of confusion and turmoil could be prevented if before some of these decisions were made by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce they did a proper in-depth marketing study.
They should not place total emphasis on self-interest groups that are after a specific degree of protection. They should provide protection, but only providing it is given in terms of total man-years and total Canadian payroll. There should be more benefit to Canadian industry, rather than the disturbance caused to the importers and the retailers who also make up an important payroll in Canada.
I call for an overview. I call for more in-depth marketing. I call for more research behind the decision-making process of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The department just does not anticipate side effects. After the department got into textile quotas-I knew it had been warned by wave after wave of interested, knowledgeable people in the industry-I asked if it had given consideration to any of the things that were going to happen, and the department said no. I have asked well meaning individuals who are every bit as concerned about this country as I am if they had any idea of what they were getting into, and they said no, which just bears out the point I am making. There must be a complete lack of research behind some of these moves.
We are trying to protect the textile industry, yet the United States realizes that that is impossible for them. Their technolo-
May 15, 1978

gy, industrial capacity, productive capacity and work force capacity is greater than ours, yet that is an industry the Americans are phasing out to third world countries and to emerging young industrial nations. Japan is doing the same thing. Surely to goodness part and parcel of the decision-making process here in Canada involves some of those attitudes, some of that experience and some of the marketing studies other countries have done.
1 will give the example of shoe quotas. 1 telephoned the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and asked its policy section if it had any idea of the man-years it was protecting by putting the quota in to protect the shoe manufacturing industry in Canada. I was told that that section did not look into that. It did not ask those questions. I did not know the answer, but I subsequently found it in a research paper put out by the footwear import committee. I found that from 1972 to 1976 that industry actually suffered a loss of 345 man-years of work. Was that loss due to imports? Was it due to increased capitalization of plant to improve the productivity of that industry in Canada?
I also asked how many of the Canadian shoe manufacturers are importers, and hon. members would be absolutely startled if they saw the list of Canadian shoe manufacturers, protected by the quota, who are importers of shoes. They have it both ways. They have protection for their manufacturing capacity as well as quotas. I also asked whether there was any value tied to the quota system, and the answer was no. So what did we have? We had one gentleman, for example, bringing in hundreds of thousands of pairs of inexpensive beach sandals. He was given quotas, and he made a small fortune selling them off.
Have these quotas on textiles and shoes helped the low income earner in Canada? No, they have not. These policies have been very inflationary. The average industrial wage in Canada is about $13,000. It is pretty difficult to raise a family on that kind of money today, but are we helping? Are we improving the purchasing power of wage dollars? With these kinds of policies, no, we are not. Importers have overheads, incomes and whole organizations. Travel expenses have gone up. Importers have stopped bringing in shirts at $40 a dozen; they now bring them at $80 a dozen. All of a sudden the market has dried up for low income earners. These are the distortions. When we ask the dreamers who make the decisions which affect us all if they foresaw anything of this, all they do is shake their heads. I take this opportunity in this debate on Bill C-48 to call for in-depth research into these matters which have such a wide and broad effect on all of us.
I sometimes wonder whether policies such as textile quotas and shoe quotas are really deliberate. Are they out to destroy the small business sector of Canada? What is happening in the shoe and textile industries today? Shoe manufacturers are eliminating their accounts receivable problems. They are dealing with big stores. They are dealing with chains. They do not want to take small, nuisance orders any more, and this is seriously distorting the distribution of footwear in Canada.
Customs Tariff
Surely to goodness a proper study would acknowledge that we are going to have a small business sector. We have a small business ministry. Is that just in name, or does it function? Has the Minister of State (Small Business) (Mr. Abbott) studied any of the complaints of small retailers? Has he learned about their inability to buy from Canadian manufacturers? I do not know. I think there is a serious inequity which has developed here too. I am told that Canadian manufacturers are not price gouging, that they are being quite responsible with regard to prices. But I am also told that their deliveries have slowed down. Just last April one very large manufacturer advised a buyer in the west that the fall production was all sold out. This indicates that Canadian capacity has been reached. Are the people in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce watching these indicators? Is the department increasing quotas to prevent a shortage and to make sure we have full distribution? I say again that in both these commodities it is the low wage earner who has been hurt.
One other aspect I should touch on has to do with waste. We have done a good job of hammering waste in government. I am a member of a committee of this House which is doing some very structural and fundamental work to create a consciousness about waste. I think there is good evidence to back up the figure of some $2 billion in government waste. That has been expounded upon, and the people of Canada are becoming very aware of this. However, that figure is infinitesimal compared with the waste we have allowed to be built into our total system. Waste in the industrial sector is unbelievable, and herein lies one of the biggest challenges and concerns we have in Canada. Waste is built into our system. The very taxation system we impose on the incentive sector builds in waste. We tax those who are efficient and those who earn profits. Perhaps we should start thinking about those economists who are questioning the old authority. Perhaps we should start slowly phasing in a tax on net cost and start reducing the tax we have on efficiency or on profit.
That brings me back to GATT. I do not know how the negotiators we have at the conference table can do justice to the Canadian scene without a national industrial strategy being in place. Our negotiators are listening to specific lobby and interest groups. They are looking at total figures and attempting to balance them by sawing off here and there. It is ad hocery all down the line. How we can deal with something as important as GATT without a national industrial strategy, or at least the framework of one, is absolutely beyond me. I suggest that the generation tomorrow will be paying for our shortcomings today in these very important negotiations.
Much of our trouble today came with the 1971-72 tax legislation. I think that the socialist input into that taxation philosophy of "a buck is a buck is a buck" is probably the most dishonest, shameful and harmful thing that has happened to us. I say this because the civil servant who is spending money on behalf of the government, the bureaucrat who is designing the expenditure, does not put the same value on the dollar as people in the private sector. When the private sector has a dollar of earnings or profit, the rate of tax is so high that a
80038-54*/2

May 15, 1978
Customs Tariff
dollar of Canadian after tax profit is too valuable to risk unless in a high capital, turnover situation.
Though not discounting measures such as DISC, I think a great many of our troubles started with that taxation act which turned a basically simple system into a complicated monster which has effectively removed decision-making from the private sector in Canada. We are surely paying the price for that folly today. The only way out is to start removing the tax on incentive and efficiency and begin to tax costs. That is the only way in which we shall be able to wring the waste out of the system and bring the industrial sector back into a competitive situation vis-a-vis the United States, the emerging Asian countries and our industrial colleagues in Europe.
I criticize tonight the floundering decision-making process within the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I think it is having a tragic effect on the world of productive work in Canada. I do not believe we shall be able to turn this drift into national bankruptcy around until we put in place an industrial strategy for the medium and the long term which would be subject to continuous amendments as conditions in the world marketplace demand change. We have to stop taxing efficiency and begin giving awards to those responsible for efficiency and frugality for those who work. I see no other way in which we can produce our own capital on the scale required for capital plant and expansion, for putting in place the infrastructure needed for transportation and for the development of new frontiers of energy. All this is necessary if we are to remain an industrialized nation. It will take some basic change in the policy and thought processes of the government before any of this is likely to change for the better, allowing us to realize a more equitable distribution of our gross national product.
[ Translation]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few brief comments on Bill C-48 now under consideration. Canadians generally probably feel that Bill C-48 is far from being clear enough to enable them to discover whether their interests are adequately protected, especially as far as industry is concerned. Perhaps there is some protection at the commercial level but, in my opinion, this is not clear enough.
The bill refers of course to many tariff items with which most Canadians are not too well acquainted and for that reason, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out once again to the House that those who draft the bills submitted to the House should make their contents more explicit because after all those bills are meant for Canadians. They are the ones who must live with them, comply with them, apply them in their midst and it seems to me that the more explicit and understandable they are for the entire population, the easier it will be for the government to administer them.

Mr. Speaker, I was for many years-I would not want to give away my age by saying that-secretary-treasurer of a municipality. As all other municipal secretary-treasurers in Quebec and in Canada I was called upon, at the request of the mayor and of the councillors, to draft regulations, and I always tried to make them clear so that the ratepayers could understand them and apply them more easily. I also had a hand in drafting releases to be distributed to the families of the municipality informing them of the decisions handed down by the municipal authorities in the best interest of the ratepayers. Since coming to the House of Commons, correct me if I am wrong, I have tried to follow the same principles, and at least I tried to have an input so that the laws by which Canadians have to abide be as clear as possible.
I am reminded of the hon. member for Lotbiniere, Mr. Auguste Choquette, who was my opponent in the Bellechasse riding and who was not so fortunate in this race; in any event, that is not the point.
He said in this House that our statutes must never be too explicit so that lawyers can have some work to do in trying to explain them to the public. I am sure that he was joking on this occasion, but this is contained in a speech that he made in this House, as anyone can check from Hansard. In my opinion, the legislation we make should be much clearer, much more explicit so that the people concerned who have to live every day with laws passed by Parliament may understand clearly why the legislators included such or such a section in a bill.
I see the hon. Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) smiling, but looking at him, I am convinced that he is thinking: "Oh Lord, how true!" For my part, I have always thought that it was much easier for a government, whether it be at the federal, provincial or municipal level, or a school board, to govern in the best interests of the population when the population understands the reasons for such or such a decision.
Mr. Speaker, I have merely glanced at Bill C-48. I cannot say that I have studied it in depth as we should normally do because we do not have enough time. In any event, I have found that it would serve the interests of the population as well as those of the government if our laws were more explicit or certain sections better explained so that the population might well understand the reasons for them and see whether they actually safeguard the interests of the individual rather than those of people who are in the import business to make profits. Mr. Speaker, what Canadian workers expect above all from Bill C-48 is that the government refuse entry into Canada of products that would compete with the capacity of Canadian industries. And I imagine the situation is the same for workers elsewhere, be they Americans, Africans or Asians. In short, workers anywhere look after their own interests and they want the industry to allow them to make a living. They do not want to see trade come in conflict with their own interests in such a way as to make them join the ranks of the unemployed.
May 15, 1978

Mr. Speaker, I agree that Canada should trade with other countries. That is quite normal. We should be allowed to export to other countries products which they cannot produce themselves, but in return they should be able to sell us those products which we are not in a position to produce domestically. I agree with the establishment of tariffs to control trade. But care should be taken that trade is done on a fraternal basis and not in a spirit of competition which could create hatred between people instead of bringing them together. Mr. Speaker, parliament should not allow trading for the sole purpose of bringing profits to those who have the advantage of holding a commercial monopoly. We had that situation before when we found it most difficult here in Canada to secure markets for our beef or pork while at the same time we opened the doors to pork or beef imports directly competing with the production capacity of our Canadian producers. Of course some improvements have been made in that respect and I am pleased to say here in the Elouse that very efficient measures have been taken and have improved conditions in that field. Canadian producers are right to be proud of them.
Mr. Speaker, we also have in Canada the textile and clothing industry and there are several industries of that type in my riding which provide a living for hundreds of families. The textile and clothing industry has been facing many difficulties in the last few years. There have been massive lay-offs due to unduly high imports under the pretext that a shirt from Taiwan costs $4.50 when a similar shirt sells for $9 in Canada. But the cost value of a product is not everything, we should also compare quality and consider that even if we pay less for imports, if we have thousands of idle workers living on unemployment or welfare allowances, it has an effect on the tax level and ultimately consumers have to pay a price equivalent to that of the Canadian product while they create unemployment.
Mr. Speaker, I accept and recognize that the recent GATT agreements have brought some improvements in that field. I asked that question not so long ago of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Elorner) and he gave us very interesting statistics on the behaviour of the textile and clothing industry. But we should be careful and very vigilant because as soon as you relax there is always someone ready to take advantage of the situation. This is why I urged the government to be very careful in its negotiations with the various countries of the world.
Mr. Speaker, as concerns food products we import 40 to 50 million pounds of different types of cheese when we could encourage our own dairy industry to find the means to produce other types of cheese which would place our dairy producers in a better position. Mr. Speaker, a great many young farmers and young dairy producers who believe in agriculture and in the future of our dairy industry have committed themselves financially. They have incurred financial obligations geared to
Customs Tariff
their production capacity but one day their quota has been reduced without any consideration for their financial obligations towards the Canadian Farm Credit Corporation, other farm credit offices, banks, caisses populaires or other financial institutions.
Having the volume of production which is necessary to meet their obligations these young farmers are unable to market their production; their obligations remain at the same level but their production quota is reduced. So they cannot make enough profit to meet their obligations. We now have many young farmers who become discouraged and simply leave their operations; they go bankrupt precisely because of a lack of foresight on our part as far as the import of dairy products is concerned. We are not vigilant enough, we should make more efforts to have our dairy production transformed into all kinds of products to enable this industry to thrive and thus ensure the survival of our agriculture, of our dairy industry all over Canada.
Mr. Speaker, another sector which has suffered directly from our lack of foresight is that of farming implements. You remember that a few years ago a commission was created by the Government of Canada to inquire into spare parts for farm machinery, namely the Barber commission. That commission did a terrific job. It reported to the government, to the House, but most of its recommendations have been pigeon-holed. And, today, parts for farming equipment have reached a price level that makes absolutely no sense, that is way beyond the capacity to pay of most Canadian farmers who have to buy them to keep their machines operating properly. There again, when dealing with other countries, the government should pay special attention to farm equipment parts so that their prices can be more in line with the purchasing power of their users. Mr. Speaker, I am not blaming those people, or businesses who must keep huge inventories of spare parts for farm machinery. They, and their industries, are subjected to trading conditions that escape their control. Obviously, if they buy a part that costs them $20, they cannot sell it for $19. But, Mr. Speaker, that is where the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) is failing us. When he sat on this side, with the Progressive Conservatives, he spoke the way I do today; he seems to have changed his mind since he has gone over to the government side. Tonight, I make a special appeal to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce: let his administration, let him, have the same attitude that he displayed when he was simply an hon. member of the Progressive Conservatives, of the opposition. Mr. Speaker, I do not think I am insulting the minister by reminding him of his attitudes and words. I think it is logical, as we are studying this bill, to emphasize that the people who are responsible for signing agreements with other countries, should always regard the interests of Canadian producers of primary products as their first priority. Mr. Speaker, Bill C-48, now before the House, does not seem like an extraordinary bill but still its contents will have consid-

May 15, 1978
Customs Tariff
erable impact on the trading future of our country in the fields of textiles, footwear and agriculture.
That is why we have to make sure that this bill will be studied very thoroughly in committee of the whole so that various clauses may be clarified. 1 hope I will have the opportunity, if possible, to take part in the proceedings of the committee when the bill is referred to it and elaborate on the brief suggestions I made to the House in this second reading debate.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that over the years there has been a subject I have heard more discussion of than this one of customs tariffs. I say very bluntly from what little intelligence I may have and from bitter experience that the whole philosophy of customs tariffs is obsolete and has been for 35 or 40 years. I say this with great feeling because I have watched the nations of the world gather together under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. This was not really a world-wide group of nations by any means. It was nothing more than a rich man's club which periodically handed out a few crumbs at the gates of the poor nations of the world.
In 1977 there were at least some crumbs handed out to these nations, but these particular changes under discussion in Bill C-48 are aimed at one thing, and that is to stick a finger, or perhaps two fingers, into the side of the United Kingdom. As we read through these items we find over and over in respect of these changes, particularly in the schedules, the reference to the fact there is no change except in the case of any such goods that are the growth, produce or manufacture of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands, et cetera. If we go down a little further we will see the same thing; there is no change in the tariff rates except in the case of any such goods that are the growth, produce or manufacture of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands, and so on. This particular group of nations is mentioned because the United Kingdom has gone into the common market and the tariffs come under the "mostfavoured-nation tariff'.
Obviously the negotiators are playing with minute little changes at the present round of talks. My view of GATT is well and clearly understood. It is nothing but a rich man's club to make the rich richer and the rest of the world poorer. The great majority of nations in the world do not belong to GATT and do not receive its benefits, even though we do hand out a few crumbs periodically.
In suggesting that the tariff philosophy is obsolete I speak from bitter experience, with the knowledge that the actual tariffs set by various countries are meaningless. What is really important are the non-tariff items, the administrative procedures and the ethics of those companies that trade across boundaries. Government subsidies and programs within countries are the factors that absolutely change the whole concept of the tariff set-up. Therefore, it is a waste of my time to spend

precious minutes in this House explaining in detail what are these non-tariff items.
Non-tariff items could more aptly be described as coming under the heading of the "dirty tricks department". Every government uses these tricks and will continue to use them. What was agreed upon at the first Kennedy Round in 1964, and what will be agreed to at the present time in 1978, amount to the same old thing; that is, non-tariff items falling within that "dirty tricks department". These are what will really decide the terms of trade between countries, and that is the fact of modern day living. There is nothing new about this, and there is not one nation more guilty of this than any other. I say this with some knowledge.
I do not condemn the philosophy of GATT. GATT was founded in that period of euphoria after the war in an attempt to put an end to tariff attacks on other nations as a new form of economic warfare. In the mind of man at that time there was a desire to put an end to this. The feeling was that if these economic causes of war-that is, high tariffs-could be removed the chance of war would be less. No one disagrees with that philosophy of GATT. I am simply pointing out the facts and the realities that have occurred in the last 30 years.
I well recall in this House 14 years ago when the then minister of trade and commerce, the former hon. member for Eglinton, announced he was going to the opening festivities of the so-called Kennedy Round, named after the then president of the United States. He was naturally quite proud to name the leading people of his department, and others he was bringing in, to attend the discussions. On occasion the government did bring in other people to help advise. As a member of the opposition at that time I was the spokesman for this party in respect of that announcement. Even though I have not read the record for some years, I remember very clearly what I said.
I reminded the minister, who had been a long-time deputy minister of that department, that sending this crack team from the department of trade and commerce to the Kennedy Round was like sending their best hired man to milk the lousiest cow you had in your herd, because it took the best hired man to get a few drops from a dried out cow.
By contrast, I recommended that for Canada's trade future what a minister of trade should be looking for is places where the pasture is greener, the heifers are newly freshened and the milk is flowing. I took that occasion to announce that I was accepting the invitation of the People's Republic of China to visit that country and talk to their ministers vis-a-vis increasing China's trade with the rest of the world. That was 14 years ago.
China's trade used to be $400 million a year, $200 million in and $200 million out, and almost entirely with the U.S.S.R. The trade of the People's Republic of China today is around $15 billion. When you see trade grow in 15 years to that extent, from $400 million to over $15 billion, you know the pastures are green. I simply use that as an example of the type
May 15, 1978

of logic that I want to put into some ideas that I would like to put forward at this time.
I would like to make my speech one with a few suggestions which I think are positive alternatives to the type of thing that we have witnessed in countries of the western world in the last 30 years. I would like to suggest a practical proposal that has been used in Canada and in other countries more or less successfully. I call this principle the growth rate exchange, and under it you simply ignore all those civil servants trying to put impediments into the movement of goods back and forth and carrying out these complicated regulations which merely add to the cost. You merely set a target for industry or for trading companies and let them go ahead and achieve that target without all these regulations, government controls and interference.
I cited in this House an example in the European steel community where two governments gave industry 20 years to achieve parity of steel production between Germany and France. Those two countries stood back under that target of parity and saw private enterprise achieve that objective in seven years.
I saw a Conservative government in this country led by the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) speak to the American car companies and propose to them that, since we bought their cars and trucks and consumed 7 per cent of the total cars and trucks in North America at that time, at least 7 per cent of the equivalent of those cars should be built and produced here in Canada.
I listened to minister after minister get up and say that this concept was started by the Liberals. I am not going to get up in a partisan way and quarrel about something like that. It was started under the chairmanship of the then minister of finance, Mr. Nowlan, and was carried on by the Pearson administration and supported by this side. The only difference was-and I am speaking in general terms-that we did not lay down any precise terms. We simply said that we expected those car companies, General Motors, Chrysler and Ford, if they wanted to continue operating in Canada to produce 7 per cent, or the equivalent of 7 per cent, of the cars and trucks here in Canada. And they did.
In the next agreement they made it more precise and said that the whole car had to be completed in Canada. Because of that there was a sudden burst in the automobile pact. These big companies said they would do what the government wanted them to do. They decided to make the small cars in Canada as Canada's contribution, but here they made a serious blunder. Everybody got in the mood for small cars and suddenly Canada was ahead of the deal. This had to be corrected, so today every word that you get out of the automobile industry and every trick of the trade is being used by them to get around this commitment.
We hear of cars coming into Canada in parts. They take off the wheels and ship the wheels in one package and the car in another package to some countries and say that this car was manufactured in Canada because the wheels were put on there. Or they take the whole package of parts and have them
Customs Tariff
assembled in another country and want it credited as a car that has been made in Canada, the actual work being done in the parent country. That is an example of what I call bitter experience.
You have to have governments that are willing to learn what the philosophy of the agreement was and see that it is enforced. I use the automobile deal as an example in spite of the things that have happened to us in the last two or three years. The principle and philosophy are sound-that you make an agreement with these companies and then say you expect such and such to be done or certain action will be taken. If they try to duck around it in the interests of their parent country, all of a sudden that action is taken period, and then they know not to fool around.
I do not know how great the truth is behind these rumours. We do not make Cadillacs in Canada, yet I understand that Cadillacs are exported to Saudi Arabia from Canada and qualify as having been produced in Canada. We did not produce them. They simply sent a couple of parts to Canada, put them into a new package and shot them out. Trucks are treated in the same way. Trucks all over the world are labelled as made in Canada, and I know they were not produced in Canada. I am simply saying if you accept the good parts of the growth rate exchange system, where you set targets for private business to reach, it does not mean that you sit back and enjoy yourself beside a swimming pool for the rest of your life. You have to watch these people all the time.
I could go on and give what I think is the number one opportunity for Canadian jobs and for Canadian development of industry, not on any subsidized basis but on the basis of comparative advantage. How many people are aware that in the last 17 years our steel industry has been competitive with every other nation in the world? The only real fight they have today is with the Japanese, and they can meet them head on as long as they are treated fairly. We have an industry which uses a tremendous amount of iron, energy and water. We pay our men higher wages per hour to produce higher quality steel and produce it at a lesser cost per ton than our competitors. We have the know-how, the proven track record of comparative advantage in this industry, and the industry is growing at a very satisfactory rate-from four million tons in 1962 and 1963 up to about 14 million tons presently.
I know what the plans are. Long before the end of this century we will have a steel industry with a capacity of between 35 million tons and 50 million tons a year based on comparative advantage-not based on subsidy by government, but on the technological know-how of our managers and the skill of our workmen. It is Fine to have this advantage in the steel industry but we as a government are not reinforcing their efforts. If we have this advantage in steel we can also have it in the value added industries created therefrom, and this is where the growth rate exchange comes in and the bargaining levers are well known. The United States is our main market. The United States has long since run out of good iron. It is down to the expensive, inferior taconite of the Mesabi range. The only nations supplying it with iron today are Canada and Brazil. If

May 15, 1978
Customs Tariff
they want access to our iron and to our energy, then I think they should know that we in turn want access to their market, and not only for basic steel. We will have to export more and more to the United States as their industry dies. We want access to the United States for the value added products with no question of tariffs at all.
This would be a mutually advantageous deal to both nations. Their consumers would get the benefit of a better and cheaper product and we would get the benefit of the jobs and the maximum utilization of our resources. We would not bar them from access to the basic iron ore, and even energy if necessary, to maintain their declining steel industry-because they would have to maintain some in their own national interest. I am simply saying this is a classic example of how a government, without spending any money, does what comes naturally and makes a deal for everybody's benefit. The United States would benefit, we would benefit and certainly the tax collectors in both countries would benefit.
I could go on to talk about the petrochemical industry as another example of a priority item. Everybody must know, surely, that the cost of producing the basic feedstocks of the chemical industry in east Texas and Louisiana or in Sarnia are almost double what they are if the product is produced in Alberta, Saskatchewan or British Columbia. Under ordinary economic law, industry would go to those places that could produce at half the cost. But industry is not made up of angels following an economic textbook. They have certain interests to protect and so the petrochemical industry is not developed where it should be and at lowest cost to the consumer in the United States and in Canada.
The one man who has his eye on this particular argument and this technique-the growth rate exchange-is the Premier of Alberta. Tie tells the United States that our natural gas is a capital resource and that when it is gone it is finished, and if they want it they must remove their tariffs and let the natural economic laws prevail. In other words, in return for our natural gas they must remove taxes on their chemicals. We can produce a certain proportion of chemicals to the limit of natural economic growth in Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan. This is the view of a man who is not only the premier of a province but one who recognizes the obsolete nature of this type of measure that we are passing through this House now. He is acting positively in the interests of the people who own those resources and at the same time he is providing a cheaper form of petrochemicals. So much of the things we use are in chemical form. The United States would benefit because of cheaper prices, and since they are running out of oil and gas it would be a good deal for both sides.
This is a classic example of where aggressive, intelligent leaders in our country see there is an alternative to sending your best hired man to these conferences to milk a dried out cow. This type of measure will not change anything. I suggest that there are positive alternatives to this obsolete tariff dance that we go through every ten years.

If hon. members want other examples of ideas, let me take a second proposal. We must face the fact that we are and will continue to be one of the great trading nations of the world. This is natural in view of our resources and the working capacity of our people. Therefore, our interests have to be in the institutions of the world today.
I am suggesting an old idea that this government has resisted since the change of government in 1963 and is delaying now. I am talking about the oldest idea in the trade institution business-the concept of the international trading company. This is a concept that goes back 400 years in our history. This country was started with an international trading company-the Hudson's Bay Company. There was the British East India Company. The Dutch had them, the French had them, the Italians had them, the Portuguese had them and so had the Spaniards. Every nation that was going any place in the 17th century had an international trading company as a way of getting around trade difficulties.
If we look at the modern industrial state of Japan, tough and ruthless as they are, we must admire the way they set up these international trading companies. If you do not have something, they get it for you so they can sell you something. They will put up the money to develop your resources so they can get the resources. The weakness of the Japanese trading company, however, is that it thinks only of Japan. They would not be able to compete with the type of international trading company I am speaking of, an international trading company that has as its first motive helping the people they are trading with and not the reverse. The international trading company that I speak of has the idea of mutual benefit to both parties and sometimes three or four parties. That is the difference.
A while ago I mentioned that on my visit to the People's Republic of China in 1964 we discussed trade terms. How could this newly developing country get away from its tie-up with the U.S.S.R. and other communist states and trade with all nations of the world? They had the trading city of Canton to which they traditionally invite all their customers, but they had to put into the mix some form of international trading companies from outside to buy the goods the Chinese have available and distribute them all over the world.
Due to this principle of some companies going to China, buying their goods and distributing them around the world, the People's Republic of China has had enough money for the last 20 years to buy and pay for Canadian wheat. They buy our wheat on a time basis-six months. They have never missed a payment because, thanks to international trading companies and private trading companies, which I will mention later, Chinese goods have gone out over the world to the tune of $7 or $8 billion per year with the same amount of goods going back. That way they get enough dollars to pay for our wheat.
Today I read a letter from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) warning us that we are too dependent on the Chinese market. As a westerner, I say thank God the Chinese honour their agreement signed in 1961 and have never broken it. It was agreed that they would buy our wheat on credit when they had no money and that we would help them sell their goods if
May 15, 1978

they would continue buying wheat from us. We have never broken our word. When I say we, I do not mean this government. A lot of us have kept up the effort of moving Chinese goods around the world and helping those countries that buy Chinese goods get enough money to pay for them so that the Chinese can pay us. Today China's trade has moved up to $15 or 16 billion per year.
I give the credit for this to the international trading companies. The Japanese trading companies have done a remarkable job, as have the American trading companies, but it is the Canadian international trading companies that are going into China, buying goods there and then distributing them around the world.
Just a year or a year and a half ago the Prime Minister returned from a trip to South America. I asked him if he had taken the opportunity to meet the heads of state of those South American republics in order to thank them for what they had done to help Canada sell wheat to China. Tie knew nothing about it. The officials had not bothered to tell him. These six governments on the west side of South America set up Chinese trading offices in each of their countries so that the Chinese could set up selling agencies in those countries, and the $100 million a year of goods bought from China by these not too rich people of South America is what paid for the Canadian wheat. If was not the Canadians and it was not the Chinese who paid for it. It went three ways. The Chinese took our wheat and sold their goods to the South Americans. The South Americans gave their dollars back to China and we got our dollars.
I am simply putting this on the record, not that any person will report it or repeat it, because some day 1 know that historians will ask how it was that this country bought such huge quantities of Canadian wheat but did not have the money to pay for it. The answer is right in what I have been saying: it is thanks to the international trading companies and the many small private companies which went out and bought Chinese goods and got them distributed around the world. That is how their trade has been developed. The Chinese people have benefited, the rest of the world has benefited and so have we in Canada. That is the second constructive proposal that I put forward and this is where the government should be putting its efforts.
In addition, I want to mention the national buying and selling companies. People keep asking: "Why, if you are talking about international trading companies, do you say you have to have national buying companies and national selling companies?" These are for specific tasks. Once again I will deal with specifics. One product which the Chinese have to sell is rice. This rice is of just as good quality as anything produced in Louisiana or southern California. I have spent years of my life writing letters to and visiting and pleading almost on bended knee with Canadian company after Canadian company to go to China, buy rice there and distribute it in Canada. The quality was there and the price was right. But I could not find
Customs Tariff
one company. Why? They said: "If we want to buy rice, we just put an ad in the trade paper. If any person wants to buy rice, they come to us and advertise, meet the advertisement's requirements and we buy from the best. We will not stir ourselves from our comfortable Canadian office to go across the ocean and look at the Chinese rice". I know very well the Chinese would not come here. They never do.


An hon. Member:: It does not get past Saskatoon-Humboldt.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The Chinese are an old culture. They happen to think they are the centre of the world. Everything comes to the centre. They do not go out to the barbarian areas. But I could not find a single Canadian company. I have a beautiful letter written from the federated co-ops of Canada centred in the city of Saskatoon, whose member sits right here. Their last letter to me stated: "If the Chinese want to sell us rice or any of their goods, bring them to Saskatoon and we will bring our buyers in and they will look and buy what they want." They have not even learned that the Chinese, like the Russians and the Americans, think that they are the centre of the world, and you have to go to them. When you are in business you have to do what business dictates. In the case of the Chinese you accept the fact that you are an inferior culture, a junior culture, and you go there and do business in their country. After that they will probably come back.
I put that very bluntly to you, Mr. Speaker, because it is another reason why that rice was not bought. Companies that distribute food in this country in the main are not Canadian-owned. They have holding companies that own them. These holding companies have rice plantations in Louisiana and southern California. The companies in Canada buy their rice from the subsidiary companies of the same holding companies to which they belong. Those are the facts of life. As I said in the opening part of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, those are the bitter experiences I have had.
On the question of selling companies, we have newsprint. Our Canadian companies for years have been in a bit of a drought, in a bit of a depression. Right now they are just getting out of it. A few years ago they had surplus paper. How hard it was to get Canadian newsprint companies to try to develop that market in China. It is so much more comfortable to sell to the papers that have long-term contracts in the United States, right near the centre of the continent. It has been impossible for almost 30 years to get a pulp mill started in the centre of Canada because the markets straight south were taken up by the coastal companies. If we had had one selling company that could have bought the paper right here in Canada from all those companies on the west coast and gone to China as one single company to sell that paper, we would have been selling newsprint to China for the last 15 years. It is true one company is now now selling quite a bit, and I want to say congratulations to them. How would you feel, Mr. Speaker, if you had spent 15 years trying to get something like that done?

May 15, 1978
Adjournment Debate
I am moving into my final series of proposals. I think I have said enough to make my point. Instead of just condemning this silly business, this roaring farce of sending out top hired man to go over and deal with these nickels, dimes and pennies, would it not have been better if the government years ago had started a program of doing these things that should have been done to meet the new realities? 1 originally made these proposals in this House in October, 1964, 14 years ago. I repeated that speech any number of times, trying to get people to pay attention to what was needed. All we had was this flim-flam, this posturing and pretending, running around and exposing themselves like a baboon. And everyone knows the part of the baboon that is being exposed. I am simply saying the wasted time that I have seen in the last 15 years should have been used to get away from this silly, obsolete question of tariffs and to get at these policy proposals that could have put Canada back into the trading picture of the world on a positive rather than negative basis.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, it is so close to ten o'clock that rather than say a few sentences may I call it ten o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday, on May 12, in the absence of the Secretary of State, 1 asked the Minister of Communications to bring to the attention of her cabinet colleagues a recent decision by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to limit its accelerated coverage plan to communities with at least 500 people speaking an official minority language, based on the 1971 and 1976 census figures. Several communities which consequently expected to eventually get either French or English television have now been set aside.
I feel this is an urgent matter, and since it is not possible during the question period to set forth all the facts relating to a problem like this, and although it is not possible for the minister to answer adequately on behalf of the CBC, nevertheless it seems important to me to deal with the problem directly by exposing it to the full light of day. The essence of the information I have in the form of letters received from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation last week is contained in the following paragraph, and I quote:

Indeed, it is with regret that we had to cut from the accelerated coverage plan certain projects in communities where the French-speaking population-
-and that is the situation I am concerned about-
-proved too small considering the costs of implementation. They had been included in the preparatory and implementing phase of the plan.
... the most recent mother tongue statistics have forced the corporation to abandon those projects in view of the inability of complying with the standard of 500 people. You may rest assured that the research department, at the request of the planning department, made every effort to analyze thoroughly the data of the 1971 and 1976 censuses before arriving at that conclusion.
Last Friday I said that decision was unfair, and I urged that cabinet convince the CBC to reverse its decision so as to stem the appalling tide of assimilation. It is obvious that the absence of French schools, government services in the everyday language, legal services, a press service and what not, are powerful sources of assimilation. The fact still remains that the absence of radio and particularly television irremediably condemns the French-speaking community to assimilation in many areas of this country.
Can we and should we as the CBC did put a price tag on staffing those services? When one realizes that the accelerated coverage plan itself was implemented a little late in this struggle for the survival of minorities, it seems to me that we should step up our efforts instead of reducing them. By any chance, would the CBC decision reflect the statements made by the present premier of Quebec who said that minorities are a lost cause anyway? Is that what the CBC mean? I would not be surprised when I consider what we have obtained so far in my province of New Brunswick, but with so many efforts, so much hardship and struggle.
At the risk of scandalizing or even offending those persons who think they have done a lot for the minorities, I will say that it is not enough and that it is high time to do more. I repeat what I have said on several occasions, namely that because of a lack of a television service in the French language among other things, the rate of assimilation of minorities is going up an accelerated pace. The home, the family is not only the cradle of culture, it is also often the last stronghold against assimilation and the recent CBC decision condemns dozens if not hundreds of small communities to surrender. The terms of reference of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation are to consolidate national unity and it is generally agreed that under the mandate with which it was entrusted by the Parliament of Canada, it also has obligations vis-a-vis communities speaking one of the official languages and that is what is important.
I regret this decision of the CBC which is pushing the most fragile, vulnerable and needy minorities toward extinction. How many will be forgotten, forsaken and sacrificed following this decision? We need to know the true figures, Mr. Speaker. We need to know the operating costs which the CBC has given as an excuse to refuse this service. As far as the accelerated
May 15, 1978

plan is concerned, I am afraid that the CBC's accomplishments fall quite short of the corporation's original objectives.
However, all is not lost, provided we act quickly. In this respect, I am very pleased to know we will be able, in the future, to avail ourselves of the opportunities which the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve) mentioned last Friday. Yet, I should like to know whether the corporation intends to take advantage of the new developments in satellite technology to provide all Canadians with a first television service in their mother tongue. I feel we have talked long enough about it, the time has come to act, and I hope that the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) or his representative will be able tonight to assure the House that the CBC will spare nothing and co-operate fully with all the other government agencies to satisfy their craving for national unity which is particularly felt by small minorities almost everywhere in this country.


Mr. Robert Daudlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the Broadcasting Act states emphatically that "all Canadians are entitled to broadcasting service in English and French as public funds become available", adding that "the national broadcasting service should be extended to all parts of Canada, as public funds become available". The CBC's accelerated radio and television coverage plan, which was approved in 1974, provides for over 600 engineering projects. The scope of this project has exhausted the resources of the corporation and imposed heavy demands on the suppliers of equipment.
It would be impossible at this time for the corporation to implement another program which could lay a further burden upon its resources. The accelerated coverage plan is expected to be completed within two years. Planning for the extension of coverage once the ACP is in operation has already begun, so that it is possible to draw up a plan which will take advantage of the impetus given by the ACP in extending CBC services to communities of less than 500 people. The development of that plan is in its first stages, but if it were approved, it could well serve as an extension to the ACP for taking up where the other will have left.
Let me recall that the formula used to set up the priorities for the ACP comprises six factors. One of them is the cultural isolation which weighs very heavy since it is important to see to it that the minority group concerned will get the service in the required language from the early stages of the implementation of the plan. Mr. Speaker, I would very much like tonight to give the hon. member the figures he is asking for. I am sorry that I do not have them, but I will let him have them as soon as they become available.
Adjournment Debate


COMMUNICATIONS-BELL CANADA CONTRACT WITH SAUDI ARABIA
Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I want to pursue this evening a question I asked the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve) on May 11 concerning Bell Canada and its Saudi Arabian contract. We are entering another chapter in the long history of Bell's appearances before the CRTC for rate increases, this being one of the largest Bell has asked for. Part of the consideration regarding whether a rate increase is justified, of course, is the profitability Bell is experiencing, the kinds of contracts and undertakings Bell is entering into, how that relates to the company's profitability and, hence, its demands for a rate increase.
Not the least of all the factors which must be taken into consideration is this large $1.1 billion contract to supply telephone systems to Saudi Arabia. There are two things that worry me. First, some evidence has come to light that in negotiating this deal Bell Canada may be violating the Canadian Human Rights Act in the sense that it may be barring women and Jews from becoming involved in the contract work for Saudi Arabia.
When the human rights commissioner asked Bell to provide him with a detailed copy of the contract so that he could determine whether this was the case or not, Bell Canada declined to do so. I find this reprehensible and an affront to the commissioner. I hope he does not have to go to the length of pursuing this matter in the Federal Court. That is why I asked the minister, who has authority over the CRTC which is currently hearing Bell's application, to cause that hearing to be suspended until the company complies with the request of the human rights commissioner. I believe that is an effective way of getting the company to respond to the commissioner's request so that conformity with the Human Rights Act passed by this parliament may be assured. The minister said she would look into that suggestion.
The other aspect of the contract which worries me concerns the fact that details of it may not be made known to the interveners at the CRTC hearing. We have heard that under this $1.1 billion contract Bell is paying some $88 million to unknown Saudi Arabian interests; there is no explanation as to the use being made of this money. Given the record of Atomic Energy of Canada and many United States companies in their dealings with third world countries, the spectre of political pay-offs or kickbacks comes to the fore. I do not want to see Canadian telephone subscribers facing another rate increase because Bell-or any other company-is greasing palms abroad in order to obtain a contract. I think it is in the public interest for the contract to be made available at the CRTC hearings; we know that the commission will see it privately. I would appreciate a reply from the parliamentary secretary with regard to what action the minister is taking on these two fronts.

May 15, 1978
Adjournment Debate


Mr. C. Douglas (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to reply to the question having to do with the human rights aspect of the contract to which the hon. member has referred. That aspect of the contract has gone before the human rights commission which has been asked by the minister to look into the matter. I understand that an investigator for the commission has now seen the contract and is preparing a report for consideration by the commission. If the commission finds that any aspect of the contract is in violation of the Canadian Human Rights Act, I would assume that the commissioner, for whom we have great respect as a former member of this House, will take whatever action he feels necessary or appropriate to correct any problems which may arise.
I would point out that there are really two contracts. One is a general agreement between the ministry of posts, telegraphs and telephones of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and a consortium consisting of Bell Canada, Philips of the Netherlands and L. M. Ericsson of Sweden to extend, modernize, operate and maintain the Saudi Arabian telephone system.
The second contract is a five year contract between the ministry and Bell Canada. Its current value is about $1.1 billion and it is for the operation and maintenance of the telephone system in the kingdom, the construction of certain facilities and the procurement of materials and supplies.
With regard to the second question, 1 would point out that the minister has not seen the contracts, nor have I. We have, wisely I believe, left the matter to the CRTC, the regulatory body. The issue was raised, of course, at the time Bell Canada was asked to make the contracts public. Bell has submitted that the contracts should be kept confidential because to make them public would, in Bell's view, cause the company to be placed at a disadvantage in future international negotiations. The interveners in the rate hearing, however, told the CRTC that its effective intervention in the rate case required them to be familiar with all aspects of Bell's revenues and expenses, including the potential risk involved in the Saudi Arabian contract.
In order to permit effective intervention while at the same time protecting Bell's international competitive position, the CRTC decided to hold an in camera hearing to examine the Saudi Arabian contracts. This hearing will begin tomorrow. One representative of each intervener will be allowed to review the contracts and then participate in the in camera hearing, to hear evidence, cross-examine witnesses and give arguments at that time. The interveners will have the opportunity to appear before Bell in order to review the contract and make whatever intervention they feel should be made at that time. I am sure the interveners will have an opportunity to ask questions about these agreements during that in camera hearing. By employing the procedure of a closed hearing, I believe the CRTC is rightly attempting to balance the interests of the public and the interests of Bell and its future negotiations.


ELECTIONS-REASON FOR PRIME MINISTER'S ANNOUNCEMENT
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, Thursday, May 11, 1978, was a day which will go down in parliamentary history as the day when the great election hoax story finally unravelled. It became a question of the chicken and the egg. Basically it was the chicken in terms of the Gallup poll. At that time I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) the question as to whether, in making his decision not to go to the people on Thursday, May 11, in order to provide them with a chance to make some adjudication on his tenure, he was following his own personal creed, which reads as follows:
The only constant factor to be found in my thinking over the years has been opposition to accepted opinions.
In fact, that is the first sentence of the foreword in his own book entitled, "Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Federalism and the French Canadians".
I was taken aback by the fact that Your Honour thought the question was somewhat advanced and somewhat of a frivolous nature. Perhaps Your Honour thought it was a little facetious, since the great announcement came after the Prime Minister had played and dangled Canadians for weeks and months on end. That interfered with the personal lives of many. It cost many thousands of people many thousands of dollars, yet the boy had his day. He played, he dangled, and he decided to pick up the ball and take it home. That one sentence of the book's foreword is perhaps the genesis for many of our problems today. I asked a serious question. I was disappointed that Your Honour cut me off. Fortunately the Prime Minister gave some answer. It was a traverse to the question. He thought it was good that the hon. member was educated.
I am glad to have an opportunity tonight to reiterate this one sentence of his personal creed. It is high time for Canadians of partisan and objective views to become educated regarding his personal creed. He has indicated that the only constant factor is going against accepted public opinion. Many hon. members know about the sales tax in Quebec. Every party in the province of Quebec, every party in this federal House and most of the premiers across Canada say that the stance of the Prime Minister on sales tax is wrong. I am referring to the debate and dispute between Mr. Parizeau and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien). We realize the Prime Minister is wrong and that his government is wrong. Yet going against that public opinion, we will have a pseudo-social credit, social dividend theory to pump money directly into the pocket books of those who can afford to pay the taxes.
Your Honour sits in his chair, I sit in my chair, and other hon. members sit in their chairs. We had the same things two or three years ago during what was then a debate on capital punishment. Again the government said it was to be a free vote, yet government members stood up in a monolithic or, as some people would say, a moronic way and voted as a group against capital punishment.
Never has there been a more definable matter in the opinion of the public. You can debate many of the reasons the public
May 15, 1978

felt this way, rightly or wrongly. Some thought capital punishment would cure all problems in respect of law and order. In any event, I think 80 per cent or 82 per cent of the public expressed a desire for a return to capital punishment. Again the Prime Minister and his government went against "accepted opinions", to put it in his own words.
The same thing can be said in respect of something called bilingualism. There have been many who have said for several years that if you try to force feed something as sensitive as the tongue before educating the mind you will get a reaction. You might well get linguistic differences becoming differences of opinion at times of election.
The Prime Minister has now pulled in his horns and taken his little election ball, put it into his back pocket and gone off to his swimming pool. Some of the great commentators of the land, including Anthony Westall, Christopher Young and Richard Gynn, now suggest we see bravery in the fact of cowardice. They say we see bravery in the face of retreat because, has the Prime Minister gone to the people, we might have had an election that divided the country along linguistic lines. What better way could there be to clear the air than to have an election? This might have been better than having a Prime Minister leading the country at a time when different linguistic lines may be part of his problem.
We can also take the question of unity, another basic issue. Most people say this country is ready for a change. They cannot accept the status quo with no change whatsoever. They will not accept Rene Levesque's brand of change. Even Jean-Luc Pepin says, in his smiling, beautiful way, that there has to be a third option.
A member of my party, our leader in 1968, tried to get Canadians to pay attention to what perhaps should have been a change. He tried to get them at least to recognize that we were not all the same and could not all be tucked into one bushel basket. He pointed out there were very fundamental differences that added strength if we could only recognize the reality of two solitudes, or call it what you will.
We can also consider the economy, which is of somewhat germane importance. How does the Prime Minister react to accepted opinions in this regard? He referred to the issue on New Year's Eve when speaking of something called the "forces of free enterprise". He got many people upset with his musings.
My time is short during this adjournment debate, but I would love to debate with Your Honour or any other member of this House the creed of the Prime Minister. This creed has been a constant factor in respect of all his thinking and his opposition to accepted opinions. How insulting and how arrogant it is to have that one man think that opposition to
Adjournment Debate
accepted public opinions is the essence of consistency, when so many of these opinions about the problems of the land are quite to the contrary.
Perhaps the Prime Minister came to this conclusion on the basis of accepted opinions, as expressed by the Gallup poll, but I would like to know what else the Liberal caucus had. Quite frankly, it will be interesting to see how it all turns out. Perhaps there will be a conclusion to the very unfortunate reign of the present Prime Minister. When it is all sorted out, the bottom line will not represent accepted opinion but rather a realization on the part of the Prime Minister that he himself is sadly one of the problems of this land today.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) raised this question, if we can put it in those terms, on May 11, 1978, at which time I read the question, if that is what you could call it, very carefully yet failed to understand just what it was. I can quite understand why Mr. Speaker interrupted at one stage, because it is a very difficult and elusive question, if one at all. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) gave a very fleeting answer to this non-question, and I will give an equally fleeting answer.
I do not think that it deserves an answer at all. It is not a specific question relating to a specific point but seems to be facetious, jocular and should be treated in that way. However, the question that was raised here tonight is slightly different in that the hon. member seems to be raising a point that the Prime Minister's willingness to swim against the tide is some kind of disadvantage.
Every human being from time to time has to swim against the tide, and sometimes swim with it as well. In any event, the Prime Minister is a man of courage, conviction and a person who is quite prepared to say what he thinks when he thinks it. He deserves respect for that particular intellectual quality.
When the hon. member goes into the question of capital punishment and questions whether it was a free vote, I can say that I was a member on this side of the House who was not a member of cabinet at the time and I can assure the hon. member that it was a free vote as far as we were concerned. I would also point out that the leader of his own party voted against capital punishment.
The other questions that are raised are not really worthy of any further comment. It was a silly question and it deserves no response whatsoever.


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

Tuesday, May 16, 1978