1978-03-21

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, having enjoyed the friendship of the state of Pakistan during my period as prime minister, and having formed tremendous admiration for that country, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move, seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston):
This parliament, having learned of the sentence of death passed on former Prime Minister Bhutto and his associates, is moved by humanitarian concern to urge most strongly that the government of Pakistan choose the option of mercy and commute the death sentence.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Decisions by Canadian National Railways in Newfoundland to remove ferry service, removal of refrigerator freight cars and changes in coastal service are contradictory and presumptuous to the objectives of the Sullivan commission looking into all aspects of transportation in the province of
Newfoundland. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon):
That this House orders that the Minister of Transport direct CNR to defer the announced changes and any further changes of CN rail and coastal service until consideration is given to the Sullivan commission report.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that six million family allowance recipients and old age pensioners will receive with this month's cheque an unsolicited Liberal party pamphlet paid for by the Government of Canada, considering that this pamphlet provides a one-sided, partisan description of the economic policies of the Government of Canada, providing no information about either family allowances or old age pensions, and considering it will cost $100,000 to produce and mail the pre-election pamphlet-money that is being taken out of the tax revenues by the Liberal government-I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House instructs the government to refer this matter to the Auditor General and the Chief Electoral Officer to ensure that this pre-election expense is paid for by the Liberal Party of Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

March 21, 1978



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: 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 special situation in Quebec as regards the administration of Bill 101; considering that the federal government intends to decentralize the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and set up a centre in Sherbrooke; considering that only residents from the vicinity of Sherbrooke or at least from Quebec might work at that centre, thus removing the conditions governing amendments to Bill 101 required by the federal government to encourage families from outside Quebec to move to Sherbrooke, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the government carry out the decentralization of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in Sherbrooke, without any prerequisite.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Under Standing Order 43, presentation of such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



CULTURAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my motion is presented as a matter of urgent and pressing necessity and national concern under Standing Order 43. Quite frankly, I believe it is deserving of unanimous support by all members of this House. Whereas steps have been made to import or introduce into Canada the film "The Three Faces of Jesus"; whereas this is Holy Week and all Christian Canadians and good, decent-thinking Canadians of various other religious faiths are concerned with the import, introduction and showing of such a distorted and ill-conceived film in Canada; and whereas there has been a general lowering of the appreciation of the fundamental principles and ideals of Christianity and this film will result in greater depreciation of these basic principles and ideals and the general morals of society in Canada under the guise of freedom, liberty, and permissiveness; and whereas various other nations have already taken steps not to allow the said film in their country; therefore, I

would move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
(1)	That this House go on record as strongly opposing the importation and/or introduction into Canada and showing of the film "The Three Faces of Jesus";
(2)	That the Prime Minister, Secretary of State, Minister of Justice, Solicitor General and the Minister of National Revenue use their good offices, in conjunction with the appropriate provincial officials, to cause this film not to be imported, introduced or shown in Canada;
(3)	That such other steps as it may deem necessary be taken by the governor general in council-that is, the cabinet-or any of its members to carry out the purport of this motion;
(4)	That this motion be acted upon immediately during this Holy Week period prior to Good Friday and Easter Sunday, the saddest and most joyous days in the Christian year.


Mr. Speaker:: The unanimous consent of the House would be required, pursuant to Standing Order 43, for the presentation of such a motion for discussion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise under Standing Order 43 concerning a matter I revealed in the House some months ago on the subject of theft or conversion of public funds at Canada Forces Base Ottawa North in the amount of approximately a quarter of a million dollars. Having learned that the RCMP has recently completed their investigation and handed in their report a while ago to the Department of National Defence, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle):
That the Minister of National Defence make a statement giving full details on this matter, including the amount of funds stolen, the amount of funds recovered, the nature of charges that have been or are being laid against certain parties in and outside the armed forces including the identity thereof; that he assure the House that all such charges will be heard in a civil court wherever military personnel are involved, and not in a secret court martial; and. Finally, that he explain why audits that would have uncovered this matter sooner were not held for some years.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for discussion can only be done with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
March 21, 1978



GATT NEGOTIATIONS ON TARIFFS ON FRUIT, VEGETABLES AND HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr, Speaker, as is usual on this first day of spring, I rise in my place under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to seek unanimous consent on an urgent and pressing matter, nothing being more urgent and pressing on a day like this than the evidence of spring symbolized by the daffodils from the riding of Esquimalt-Saanich that are being made available to all members in the lobbies today; evidence, further, if we look outside today, that there is a vast range of vegetational maturity in this country of ours, earlier in the west than in central Canada. In view of these circumstances, and because of the current GATT discussions in Geneva, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon):
That this House commend to the current government, and in particular the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, in close consultation with the Horticultural Council, an urgent re-examination of the GATT proposals to ensure that a seasonally and regionally adjusted tariff concept be put forward at the GATT discussions to ensure that Canadian fruit, vegetable and horticultural production, on a regional basis, shall not suffer, thereby protecting the incomes of Canadians whose livelihoods depend on these products.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, the "stand pat" minister who seems to be running around the country saying that everything is all right while the country is going down the drain. We note that in the year 1977 we had some 4,000 bankruptcies, an all-time record. In the month of January, 1978, we had 503 bankruptcies, twice that of January 1977. My question is simply this: What is the minister going to do? What special steps is he prepared to take in order to reduce this very alarming trend of increasing bankruptcies?


Hon. Jean Chrfetien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am very amazed that the hon. member should have put that question. For the last three years he has been advocating a return to the marketplace so that the marketplace could decide who should survive and who should not. I want to remind him
Oral Questions
that we have established economic policies and guidelines. I am informed that in January there was a big increase in retail sales, as compared with last year. We are hoping that the tax incentives provided in Bill C-ll, which was passed by the House last December, will produce the results expected from them.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Judging from that answer, I gather the minister's attitude seems to be "Wait, wait, wait", while the country is going down the drain. I would point out that we are facing an all-time level of bankruptcies and that unemployment is at an all-time high. When will the hon. gentleman have any evidence that the ineffective stimulus he has provided with respect to the economy is working so that the House and the country may know whether or not a budget is needed?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Again, I am very amazed by the hon. member's question. Most of his hon. friends are telling the public that we are running too big a deficit, but today he is suggesting we should incur an even larger deficit. I wish hon. members on the other side would make up their minds and produce a coherent policy.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: All I know is that the Canadian people are getting tired of the minister's complacency, hesitancy, footdragging and ineffectiveness.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I should like to pose a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce-who I hope will be more responsible than the Minister of Finance-regarding unemployment. Mrs. Dagum, who is the economist responsible for seasonally adjusting the unemployment figures, has stated:
There is need for a new definition of unemployment if we don't want to mislead people. I don't think the figures we now have really represent unemployment.
Now that we know the figures concerning unemployment are misleading to a certain extent, will the minister take such steps as are required to ensure that the House and the country get the proper figures? Further, will he discuss this matter with Mrs. Dagum to see that the House is not misled in future?
Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): I would agree we do need a more realistic set of figures by which to gauge unemployment. If the opposition would allow the government to devise a new set of statistics and would not complain about the new system, we might well go ahead.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
[Stage Direction]
March 21, 1978

Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Following the release on bankruptcies by Statistics Canada, Dunn and Bradstreet reports that the loss to the Canadian economy is in the order of $800 million, which is twice as much as the figure for 1976. Now that the minister has added to the problem by increasing interest rates, can he tell us whether his department is doing anything to reduce the pressure on business, particularly on the small business sector which is dramatically affected by these bankruptcies?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The hon. member has not mentioned the fact that interest rates today are .5 per cent lower than they were about 18 months ago, so I do not think he can complain that interest rates have been a significant factor in this situation. As he knows, we were forced to raise the interest rate by half a point some ten days ago, after the spread had been reduced from four points to less than a point with the U.S.A., in order to maintain a situation in which some funds flow into the Canadian economy from outside. To do this we had to enlarge the spread to one point, but we are still far from the four-point spread we were dealing with a few months ago.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, there was a first ministers' conference in Ottawa a few weeks ago, and today ten premiers, ten provincial legislatures, more than one million unemployed Canadians and this House are all waiting for the federal response. I want to know when the minister is going to call a finance ministers' conference-I hope not later than next month-to prepare specific proposals for ratification at the next first ministers' conference. When is that conference going to be held?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, since the first ministers' conference, I am disappointed to see that the governments of Newfoundland and Ontario have decided to increase taxes. At least I am not doing that at this time.


William James Kempling: It is rather obvious that the government has nothing to offer. Nearly half the bankruptcies recorded in the Statistics Canada report were in Ontario. Will the minister tell the House why, at the GATT negotiations, he has allowed the Canadian negotiators to go in with nearly everything up for grabs, while the American negotiators went in with a list of industries which are to be excluded from the negotiations? Why has the minister not followed through with his promise made at the first ministers' conference to inform the premiers of the provinces of this list Canada is taking into those negotiations?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, there is constant consultation between the federal government and the provincial governments with regard to the GATT negotiations. I am surprised

that the hon. member is not taking that into account. We are in a position at this time to make some offers, and we will see what other offers there will be. We will make a final decision when we see what we can gain from those negotiations.
Canada is a trading nation. In relation to its population, it probably trades more than any other country. I think we have to be very careful before we begin too much protectionism, because it is very difficult to sell if we are not in a position to open our markets. That is a position with which the government of Ontario agrees.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. The Treasury Board office confirmed this morning that a piece of blatant Liberal propaganda, a copy of which I have in my hand, is being mailed out to all recipients of family allowance cheques and old age pension cheques. The leaflet contains no information either about family allowances or pensions, but it does contain blatant propaganda about the government's economic performance. Is the Acting Prime Minister aware of this leaflet, and is he aware that Treasury Board confirms it will cost $100,000 to mail? Does he not think this constitutes a clear violation of the Election Expenses Act?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, if the leaflet tries to convey the impression the leader of the New Democratic Party suggests, the people who prepared the leaflet would have been well advised to colour it red rather than green.


Mr. Clark:: Everything is in the red over there.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am not sure that the cost of the leaflet is the cost indicated by the hon. member. I am amazed, because hon. members opposite always claim that we do not make enough information available. When we do, the information is called propaganda. I think the policy of the government is that we should inform the public. I remember that when Mr. Dave Barrett was premier of British Columbia, coloured pictures and propaganda were sent all around the province.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have the distinct impression that this government would not recognize a bucketful of slime if it fell into it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: No member on either side of the House could object if the government sent a leaflet to pensioners
March 21, 1978

which contained information about pensions, or if it sent leaflets about family allowances to people receiving family allowances. I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister, in all seriousness, if he thinks it is appropriate to mail general propaganda about the government's economic performance at public expense of $100,000. The cost was confirmed this morning. Is that appropriate?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I feel it is the government's duty to inform the public. I have not read the document the hon. member has in his possession. I find it strange, however, that the hon. member should object to our providing information to people at the same time we are sending them their cheques. This is a procedure which the government has been following for a very long time whenever it wants to explain its policies.
I have not read this leaflet, but knowing the President of Privy Council, 1 am sure that the information is meant to illustrate the policy of the Canadian government, not those of a political party.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary. I will quote very briefly from the pamphlet. This pamphlet is going to pensioners and recipients of family allowance. It reads in part:
In coming months, you may go to your doctor or to a provincial hospital, visit a national park or a provincial museum. You will surely watch television or mail a few letters. Remember that federal funds help finance these public services- including those provided by provincial governments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Does the minister think it is appropriate to spend $100,000 mailing this pamphlet to pensioners and recipients of family allowance? If he thinks it is appropriate to use public funds in that manner to propagandize his government's economic performance, why does the government not provide equal funds to opposition parties to state their side of the story?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully, and there is nothing but the truth in what is written there. I think Canadians are entitled to know, when they receive a pension, that it is the people of Canada who pay for it and that those laws have been voted by the parliament of Canada. I think the hon. member would have a point if we were saying that this was provided by the Liberal party, but we have said that it has been provided by the government of Canada. Most of the things mentioned there have been voted for unanimously by this House. No one has ever voted against pension increases or national parks. All hon. members of parliament have voted for those in the past, and I am sure they will do so in the future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


FINANCE
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, my question was intended for the right hon. Prime Minister, or in his absence for the Deputy Prime Minister; but in view of the latter's absence, I shall have to put it to the Acting Deputy Prime Minister.
In a statement made during his tour yesterday of the Eastern Townships, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs admitted candidly that that gathering of ministers and Liberal members in Quebec had been organized to increase the Liberal representation in that area. Now, as far as we know, the House has not been prorogued yet and the minister took the liberty of denigrating the parliamentary opposition by claiming that we have been keeping the government from acting. Now, as that is a shameless lie, would the minister tell the House what is keeping the government from getting legislation passed and, in addition, from bringing in its annual budget? Is it because most of the ministers are out politicking in Quebec?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the first part of the question is somewhat unfair to the Prime Minister who left Ottawa today to meet the Secretary General of the United Nations, and even more unfair to the Deputy Prime Minister who, unfortunately, had to stay home because of illness. I have been asked several times before to take over during their absence.
Mr. Speaker, if I were to make observations every time the hon. member for Temiscamingue is not in the House of Commons, I would be standing up all the time. Now, Mr. Speaker, ministers and hon. members of the government have acquired the very good habit of visiting all parts of Canada to meet the people and hear their points of view, to explain our policies and try to establish better communications with the people.
Of course, in the Eastern Townships, there are two ridings which do not belong to us yet but I understand that the hon. leader of the Social Credit Party of Canada is very concerned; he is afraid of losing them-with reason, I think.


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
As you can see, when a question is asked, they take pleasure in beating about the bush without answering it. Considering that the ministers are complaining in the province of Quebec that the opposition prevents them from legislating, and that when we want to ask them a question in the House, these ministers are not here, I repeat my first question: What prevents the Minister of Finance from introducing his budget now while the opposition is prepared to discuss the budget in the House, however ridiculous it may be?

March 21, 1978
Oral Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps the hon. member is right. The minister should not have complained about filibustering by the Social Crediters because they are generally absent.
As far as a budget is concerned, I declared several times that I am reviewing the situation and that I shall have a budget when we think the moment is appropriate. I think it would be important to receive the information on the first quarter of 1978 before changing the economic policies announced by the government. It is indeed very surprising that the Conservatives have acquired a new critic for economic matters who said on TV last weekend that I was perfectly right to expect a 5 per cent growth for 1978, while the Leader of the Opposition himself said in Toronto the previous day that nobody would believe my predictions, except for his new recruits.


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the Liberals should feel the need to dispatch a vanguard three months in advance to try and win two ridings, given the rate of inflation and unemployment that prevail in Canada, but the fact remains that a minister accuses the opposition of being absent from the House and upsetting the parliamentary schedule. So I would ask the minister what he intends to do in the field of finance to rectify now our economic situation, so that we can discuss the question right away. Why does he keep deferring the presentation of his budget?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday he said he expected that within 24 hours things in Lebanon concerning the interim peacekeeping force would be much clearer. Could he tell the House what the situation is today? Have we been asked for troops and, if so, what kind of troops? Have we offered troops and, if so, what kind of troops?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I hope that with your indulgence I can give a brief answer on all those points,


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: So do we.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: If the hon. member will give me sufficient time, I will be glad to answer as fully as possible. The proposed operation is in two phases. The first is an advance force which would consist of some Swedish and some Austrian troops. In that connection, there has now been a specific request to Canada for some logistic support for that brief operation

which is likely to take from two weeks to a month. We are examining the proposal in a positive way. The Minister of National Defence, Admiral Falls and I met this morning along with the under-secretary of the department, and we hope we can do something in connection with that particular request.
In terms of phase two of the operation, namely, the establishment of the special force as agreed to by the Security Council, the Secretary General is working on it at the present time. There has not been a request to Canada, and in sor far as we have been able to determine it is unlikely that we will be asked to participate in that activity because of the large number of Canadian forces already in the Middle East region. There are approximately 1,100. There is a general feeling that perhaps the burden might be more equitably shared among various countries.
I am glad to say that we learned shortly before lunch today that Norway, for example, has agreed, I believe in principle and perhaps, indeed, has actually committed itself, to the special force. There is some prospect that France may also be prepared to make a contribution. All of this is very welcome to us as it helps to spread the burden of peacekeeping in that troubled area.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Secretary of State for External Affairs for that full answer. On reading Hansard, I noticed that he omitted to answer one of my questions yesterday which concerned parliamentary approval for moving troops to new peacekeeping tasks. Would the minister state now that as a matter of principle he agrees with Mr. Pearson's principle that no new commitment of peacekeeping should be taken on without parliamentary approval?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, in principle I do not see that there is any particular difficulty with consulting parliament. 1 have tried in this particular case to put all the facts before the House. 1 would think it would have to be examined on an individual basis. If, as in the case with phase one as I outlined it, we are simply agreeing to provide some interim logistical support, I would think it is entirely proper to move on the basis of established policy.
I think I have demonstrated that there is no reluctance on my part to consult with the House through committees, in committee of the whole, or in some other way. As to this particular case, I think it is hypothetical at the moment because, I repeat, there is no request before the government.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, and not only in that capacity but also in his capacity as Minister of Transport. As grain shipments are very slow off the prairies this year, which means that farmers not only face exceptionally low grain prices but also low quotas, and as most
March 21, 1978

grain elevators on the prairies are plugged, plus the fact that the Canadian Wheat Board is 32 million bushels behind in export clearance-I might add that many farmers have grain stored outside, on the ground-can the minister tell the Elouse and the farmers what immediate steps the government is taking to correct this serious situation and get the grain moving?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the statement that we are a certain number of bushels behind is only accurate in relation to some very high targets of exports which we have set. Indeed, our targets are for record exports. The right hon. member for Prince Albert laughs, but that is twice as much as was ever exported in any one year during the time of his government.
We and the Wheat Board are examining every method to improve turn-around, and such matters as possible use of a bulk handling facility at Vancouver in addition to the regular terminals are being looked at. I am confident that as the months go by and the snow difficulties on the prairies are behind us, we will move toward our target and end the year with a record export figure.


Donald Craig Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the figures I used and which the minister questioned are from the president of the Manitoba pool elevators. My supplementary question is as follows: As it is an unfortunate fact that Manitoba granaries are the last to be emptied each year, and as Manitoba farmer's grain deliveries are 9.2 million bushels behind last year, will special attention be paid to this situation particularly before the farmers face the spring thaw and road restrictions?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I was not questioning the hon. member's figures at all, but just putting them in perspective. When we said last month that we had had a difficult January, we had a January in which we exported a record volume of grain, so the difficulty was somewhat relative. I assure the hon. member that the Canadian Wheat Board and I are extremely sympathetic to the particular difficulties of the Manitoba producers who have had to wait this year for delivery opportunities, because in reaching a record volume of exports the Wheat Board has to try to make use of cars and railway equipment in the most sensible fashion. This means, during the winter season, taking the grain from the farther distant points into Thunder Bay and the east, knowing that when the record movement will have to take place during May, June, July and August, the closer points in Manitoba can be served more efficiently and effectively, with a faster turn-around. It is a difficulty.
I am glad the cash advance programs are available to help farmers. They are very significant. I can assure producers in Manitoba that quotas will be opened very rapidly, not necessarily before the spring break-up but certainly during May, June, July and August.


An hon. Member:: Around election time!
Oral Questions


Otto Emil Lang: Before, during and after an election, as we have shown, we have set records every year without regard to that question.


An hon. Member:: Same old story.


An hon. Member:: Nobody believes you.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration? In light of the very serious and, to say the least, sad situation now existing in Lebanon, can the minister tell the House what action his department is taking to assist Lebanese affected by the conflict to join their anxious relatives in Canada, and if special consideration will be extended to those actually in Canada?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this particular question.


An hon. Member:: I think it was the other way around.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I might say that the initiative came from the hon. member, not from my department, for this question.


An hon. Member:: You are smiling.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, cases arising out of the situation in Lebanon will be treated on a priority basis. Those Lebanese presently in Canada, of course, will be looked at sympathetically and no one will be asked to return to that particular region. In addition to that, we will look very sympathetically at other cases of people who want to apply for immigrant status here, and we will consider those who seek employment. We will deal as sympathetically as we can and in an understanding way, given the problem.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS ESTABLISHMENT OF FORESTRY POLICY
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: My question is for the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations. I would like to refer him to the approach made to the federal government during the recent first ministers' conference in support of the establishment of a federal forestry policy, in particular the five-point terms of reference that were enumerated.
Could the minister tell the House whether it is the intention of the federal government to reinstitute a national forestry policy again, a policy which could address itself to the very

March 21, 1978
Oral Questions
serious problems that one sector of the forest industry is facing at the present time, namely, the pulp and paper sector?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations):: Mr. Speaker, the minister responsible for forestry is unfortunately detained outside of the House. He might be able to expand further in this respect at a later time. I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. member that under the jurisdiction of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, a sectorial study of the forest industry is being carried on by officials of the forestry department. This sectorial study of the pulp and paper industry is very advanced. If the hon. member wishes to ask further questions of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, he will be able to provide him with more information.
The pulp and paper industry has been identified as an important area in terms of our industrial strategy and there is federal, provincial and private sector consultation at the present time with regard to this whole matter.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, it is clearly the intention of all the provinces to require the federal government to re-initiate a federal forestry policy. It is true there are 27 different departments meddling in this very important segment, not only of our economy, but of our lives, our environment and all ecological questions that arise. Can the minister assure the House, today, that the minister of forestry and the environment will assume jurisdiction over the 27 departments and address himself to this very serious matter?


Marc Lalonde: I would like to say to the hon. member that there is at least a slight exaggeration in the number he has mentioned. As far as the forestry policy of the federal government is concerned, it is at the present time under the direction and control of the minister responsible for forestry. He is also actively involved in consultations, as I have said, with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce respecting the situation in the pulp and paper industry. I would hope that those consultations, which involve the provinces and the private sector, will prove extremely fruitful with regard to this very important industry.


REASON FOR DELAY IN MAKING STABILIZATION PAYMENTS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. What is holding up the calculation and payments under the Western Grain Stabilization Act? The minister will know that with skyrocketing prices for farm items, and the fact that the farmer requires his money right now in order to get into production, it is a very important time for him. What is holding up the minister's statement on this particular payment?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, essentially, the calculations take some time. The figures are somewhat complex. I indicated several weeks ago that I expected, perhaps by the end of March, to be able to indicate the nature of the payment and also the timing of the payment. That is still a distinct possibility. There was a significant delay in the reporting of grain receipts by the grain companies. These came in much later than they should, including throughout February and into early March. In order to get all the reports in, we had to impose a March 15 deadline. That has obviously delayed completion of the calculation. But, as I say, I hope within the next ten days to be able to make an announcement.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I know that the minister would not want to be accused of making these announcements and payments just before a federal election; I will not even suggest it on the floor of the House.


An hon. Member:: Not Otto.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Listening to him and looking at him, he appears to have been burned again for some reason. I would ask him, in the interest of making this plan more responsive to the realities of western Canada, whether he would give serious consideration to the suggestions made on our side of the House for a more regional approach to the payments, or indeed on an individual basis, so that farmers would get payments on a regular basis and not on a basis dictated by events like national elections every few years.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may have forgotten that I indicated quite clearly that I would be prepared to work toward a regionally-based plan-indeed, that is written into the bill-but we have not yet come up with a satisfactory system for doing that. The advisory committee, composed of producers has from time to time looked at the question. We do not have a solution to the regional issue. As far as timing is concerned, I indicated at the time the bill was going through the House, and I have indicated year after year since, that the month of April is the right time for a payment when one is due. It is now apparent that this year one will be due for the 1977 year. I am as anxious as anyone to get the amount determined and the payment into farmers' hands.


An hon. Member:: Just before the election.


Otto Emil Lang: I am certainly aware of how badly farmers need cash, particularly at seeding time. I heard the hon. member's suggestion that this payment is related to an election, and it may well be close-


An hon. Member:: No!


Otto Emil Lang: -but for years we have said that the payment should be made in April. I think that is a statement he really should not make, in all conscience-certainly not among friends.


Some hon. Members:: 
An hon. Member:: Who do you think you are kidding?


Otto Emil Lang: I say to him particularly that in this case an election gain is from having the stabilization plan which this government fought for, and got through, to the great benefit of Canadian farmers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: You are something else.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the government of Canada recently announced measures aimed at cutting back trade and support for the government of South Africa, and in view of the fact that the government's present campaign against the South African government has shown no appreciable effect so far, can the minister tell this House if his government is prepared to go further by stopping all interaction between any government agencies involved in commerce and trade with the government of South Africa?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, when I made the initial announcement with regard to various measures undertaken by the government, which I believe was in December last, I also mentioned-and I refer the hon. member to the statement-that there were a number of other matters being considered which fall generally within the definitions he has just outlined, such as the matter of credit, the matter of preference under the Commonwealth preference scheme, and a number of others. Work is continuing on them. I hope to be in a position shortly to indicate whether these measures will be taken, or not, on the basis of what the studies reveal.
If I can have just another moment, I should say that the question of Namibia is one which I have discussed with other western countries. Given the prospect, however slim at the moment, but still a prospect, that we can get a resolution of the basic problems this year, there is a feeling that perhaps we ought not to move in terms of any further sanctions relating to Namibia until the outcome of the present negotiations is known.


John R. Rodriguez: In view of the fact the minister's announcement to this House and the country was some V/2 to four months ago, and the government has said that the major commercial transactions between Canada and South Africa are handled by the private sector, will the minister tell the House if his government is prepared to discourage support of the South African government by private Canadian compa-
Oral Questions
nies, by cancelling double-taxation agreements between Canada and South Africa and withdrawing any government money now held on deposit in any Canadian bank involved in loans to South Africa?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: 
John R. Rodriguez: In view of the fact the matter of Namibia is of grave concern, and the departure from Namibia by South Africa is of concern to this House and the country, I put it to the minister that our concern about the regime in South Africa is based on the fact that the black man and the white man are not equal, and the fact that there is "bantustanization" in progress. Is the minister prepared to take those steps against the regime in South Africa which will indicate that we in Canada are seriously concerned about that philosophy on which its government is based?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation whatever in repeating what I have said on many occasions, that this government-and, I am sure, this parliament and this country-is unalterably opposed to apartheid. We have already taken certain measures. We are prepared and are examining the possibility of going further. It is strictly a question of how far we can go on our own without still greater support from the world community, and at what point such actions become counterproductive to the principal goal of getting apartheid eliminated as a basic principle and achieving freedom for Namibia. Those are just two of the issues involved.
Finally, I should reiterate the point that I would be delighted if this House would debate at some time whether we should go so far as to inhibit private enterprise, private individuals not seeking any support from the Government of Canada, in any dealings they wish to have with South Africa or any other country.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. The executives of the Post Office and the minister seem insensitive

March 21, 1978
Oral Questions
to postal workers who are now being suspended because they dared to deliver mail early, namely, family allowance cheques. Were those the minister's instructions? If so, will he now declare them void, because it demonstrates insensitivity toward labourers, workers and carriers in the Post Office?


Hon. J.-Gilles Lamontagne (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the Postmaster General has never given any instructions as to when a letter must or must not be delivered. It is a matter of internal management, but it is up to the superintend-ant of each section to decide when the mail must be delivered, especially when the mail consists of letters containing family allowance cheques or old age security pension cheques for which a precise date of delivery is given. We cannot deliver these letters any time we feel like it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, in light of the callous answer given by the Postmaster General with regard to the suspension of postal carriers and workers. Will the Minister of National Health and Welfare implement in her department a computer which will set out the date on which these cheques will be negotiable? Those who are carrying the mail are serving Canadians. The performance of the Post Office is now in question. Will the minister implement a program which will set out the date when these cheques can be cashed, so that these people will not suffer loss of pay and embarrassment as a result of being suspended?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why this question is put to me since I have nothing to do with the internal administration of post offices. My department always sees to it that an emergency plan allows for cheques to reach their destination if serious impediments ever occur. But we have nothing to do with what the hon. member is referring to.


FINANCE
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Will the minister explain why he went to the New York market for a $750 million loan, breaking the long-term tradition of federal government borrowing in Canada? Is he opening the way for heavy borrowings in the coming year in the Canadian bond market?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I explained that we decided to go into the American market in order to raise funds in the United States. One reason was that Canadians are not borrowing as they used to in the American

market. In addition, this money will be used for reserve purposes.
* *
*
[ Translation]


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture.
Recently the Canadian Dairy Commission sent a letter to milk producers in Quebec stating:
We wish to advise you that payment of the milk subsidy on your January deliveries which was to be mailed out this week will be postponed... or withheld.
Considering that the decision made by the Canadian Dairy Commission is causing enormous difficulties and could jeopardize the existence of a number of milk producers, does the minister intend to instruct the Canadian Dairy Commission to take the necessary steps so that subsidies be paid to milk producers who need them, as the minister knows?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: As 1 said in answer to a question in the House the other day, Mr. Speaker, a problem exists between the two dairy groups in the province of Quebec, the group representing the fluid milk producers, which involves about 30 per cent of the milk production in Quebec, and the group representing the industrial milk producers, which represents about 70 per cent of the producers in Quebec. These two groups of producers held meetings over the weekend involving the provincial organizations, farm organizations and the Canadian Dairy Commission. They did not come to any decision. They have to straighten this out.
The Canadian Dairy Commission is responsible for seeing that the stabilization payments go to those who are entitled to receive them. I understand they are going to hold public hearings. 1 heard this morning that public hearings would be held on the administration of the milk marketing system for fluid milk within the province of Quebec. I am not sure whether they are going to be successful. I was told that representatives of the fluid milk producers would make legal representation to have an injunction served to stop the public hearings. I think public hearings is a good idea.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice, who is represented through senior officials on both IAC, the Intelligence Advisory Committee, and SAC, the Security Advisory Committee. In view of reports that 58 documents were circulated, entitled "Canadi-
March 21, 1978

an-related activities of the Russian Intelligence Service", marked "Top Secret-For Canadian Eyes Only", can the Minister of Justice inform the House whether and, if so, why, at least eight copies of the 58 were distributed to foreign countries? Was this done on ministerial authority?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, my department is not in charge of the distribution of these documents, but as the Solicitor General so wisely said a little while ago in this House, it would not be proper to outline in the House the distribution of such documents. It is evident there is no purpose in informing those who want to obtain those documents of the method of distribution or to whom they are distributed.


William Herbert Jarvis: May I ask the Minister of Justice, who is represented by a top official on each committee, whether it is possible that a document marked "Top Secret-For Canadian Eyes Only" could be distributed to a foreign government or to its agencies, in the absence of ministerial authority and, if that is not the case, which minister is responsible for giving that authority?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I will have to take notice of the question as to who specifically directs the distribution of these documents.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Probably the Queen's Printer.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) has several times raised a question of privilege, specifically on March 16, regarding electronic surveillance of members of parliament. He has put forward a motion requesting that an instance of such surveillance in which he was allegedly involved be submitted to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. For the benefit of hon. members I will read the motion:
That the allegation by one Warren Hart, in a sworn affidavit, that he taped electronically, on one or more occasions, the member for Nickel Belt, together with the admission by the Solicitor General that the said Warren Hart was for a time in the employ of the RCMP, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, for the purpose of inquiring into the said allegation and the circumstances relating to any such electronic surveillance of the said member, including an inquiry as to what happened to any tapes of the said member that may have been made by the said Warren Hart.
I have suggested, while attempting to deal with this matter in the past, that it is obviously one which is entirely new to our jurisprudence in that there is, of course, no precedent in any of the earlier practices of this House or of Westminster which relate in any way to electronic surveillance. It would have been helpful to the Chair if, in these circumstances, the alleged surveillance had taken place within the precincts of parlia-
Privilege-Mr. Rodriguez
ment. The case has another dimension altogether when it is alleged to have taken place elsewhere.
On the face of it, it seems to me that the electronic surveillance of a member could be regarded as a form of harassment, or obstruction, or molestation, or intimidation of a member, all of which phrases have been used in our precedents to support the position that such conduct is a contempt of the House. In this case I confess that the novelty of the basic problem, the ingredient that though it happened outside the precincts of parliament that it did occur while the agent allegedly, according to his sworn statement, was under contract to the national police force, are aspects which leave me in considerable doubt.
We have already established the fact that this was not a conflict between statements made or assurances given by the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) to the hon. member with respect to the fact that this man was under no instructions to carry out this form of activity. Nevertheless, there is the ingredient that he was under contract. This has been established and it raises a number of elements which, frankly, puzzle me in deciding whether or not in these circumstances electronic surveillance of the sort alleged might be considered by the House to be an infringement of the privileges or a harassment or a molestation of one of its members in keeping with the terminology used in the past when electronic surveillance did not exist.
In this connection I wish to refer the House to some excellent language contained in the Report of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege dated 1967, in the United Kingdom. I have the reference here and I will table it with my notes today for the benefit of the reporters. The document is dated February 20, 1967, and I call attention to the following passage which appears on page 111:
From this circumstance it might be inferred that the test applied by the Speaker in deciding whether to give precedence over the orders of the day to a complaint of breach of privilege-or rather to the motion which the Member who has made the complaint desires to move in reference thereto-is, Does the act complained of appear to me at First sight to be a breach of privilege? Rigorously applied, it would mean that no complaint of breach of privilege could ever be entertained unless the Speaker was of opinion that the act or conduct complained of was a breach of privilege. The result would be that the House, which alone is competent to decide whether a particular act is a breach of privilege, would have no opportunity of deciding the question unless the government gave time for its discussion. Borderline cases and arguable ones would be excluded automatically because in such cases the Speaker could not say that he was of opinion that the act or conduct which was the subject of complaint prima facie constituted a breach of privilege.
I ask hon. members to note the phrase "which alone is competent to decide". That is the point I wish to stress. To continue quoting:
In my submission the question which the Speaker should ask himself, when he has to decide whether to grant precedence over other public business to a motion which a Member who has complained of some act or conduct as constituting a breach of privilege desires to move, should be, not-do I consider that, assuming that the facts are as stated, the act or conduct constitutes a breach of privilege, but could it reasonably be held to be a breach of privilege, or to put it shortly, has the Member an arguable point? If the Speaker feels any doubt on the question, he should, in my view, leave it to the House.
That is the position in which I find myself here. In all the circumstances, I hesitate very much to take away on procedural grounds the possibility of reaching a decision on a

March 21, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
subject to which the Elouse might wish to address itself. In debating the motion put forward by the hon. member, members of the House might make valuable contributions to the question of whether or not we should treat this kind of electronic interference in some special way. Indeed, if the House decides in its wisdom that the matter should be referred to a committee for consideration, the committee hearing might result in an indication of the proper attitude which should be taken toward the matter. Therefore, on balance, in the special circumstances which exist here, it is my conclusion that I should resolve my doubt in favour of putting the question to the House at the proper time.
There are other matters to be dealt with this afternoon. There are other procedural matters to be dealt with and further items under Routine Proceedings to be considered before Orders of the Day are called. Perhaps I could let the matter stand over and put the question to the House prior to calling Orders of the Day, until which time hon. members would have the opportunity of reflecting upon what their attitude would be toward the motion.


MR. LAWRENCE-ANSWERS GIVEN BY SOLICITOR GENERAL
Mr. Speaker:: The second question of privilege which is outstanding relates to a matter which dates back to February 3, 1978, a question of privilege respecting answers to questions asked during the oral question period. This relates to a series of events beginning when the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) indicated in answer to a question that he did not intend to comment day by day on evidence adduced before the McDonald commission.
This response gave rise to a question of privilege, during the discussion of which I expressed the view that the matter, at that point, was hypothetical and that it should be tested by putting further questions to the minister during that or subsequent question periods. At that time both the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) made motions to refer the issue to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
At the conclusion of the discussion I expressed the view that, in the final analysis, the House was forced back upon the position that in our practice a minister is not obliged to answer a question and therefore it was futile for the Chair even to attempt to determine the validity of the grounds upon which a minister in any individual case might refuse to make an answer. I also stated it might be useful to reserve judgment on the two motions for an extended period in order to determine exactly what would take place during the question periods which followed.
On March 9 a number of questions were addressed to the Solicitor General dealing generally with administrative procedures involved in the handling of certain secret documents and procedures for the issuing of warrants under the Official Secrets Act. The Solicitor General indicated in reply that he

did not intend to comment on those matters, and consequently the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis) raised a question of privilege and asked that the earlier motions to which I have referred, those of the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre which had been offered earlier, be revived. At that stage I took the matter under further consideration, and I must say that again I can see no way in which the Chair can intervene, since the Chair cannot be called upon to make a value judgment respecting answers given to questions and, of course, cannot under any circumstances compel a minister to make an answer during any question period.
I think also it is understood that the House ought not to seek redress from the Chair in a situation of this kind because to find otherwise, it seems to me, would be to make a shift of ministerial responsibility onto the shoulders of the Chair, which I think all hon. members would consider to be a regrettable development.
In other words, we return to the basic point that since there can be no obligation upon a minister to make an answer, and since such an obligation, if it did exist or if it were capable of definition, would seem to be incapable of enforcement in any given circumstances, in the final analysis on both these motions we are reduced to that basic point, and I must set them aside.


MR. NIELSEN-POSTAL SERVICE
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief question of privilege with respect to how unauthorized material finds its way into the hands of members of parliament. It can be explained simply by my reading a memorandum from my constituency office secretary addressed to myself and dated March 13, 1978, which reads as follows:
You will find enclosed herewith a House of Commons requisition dated January 17/78 for envelopes which were sent to this office and received on March 7th last, in a blue postal bag addressed to you.
Today, during my lunch hour, I untied the bag and emptied same of the two parcels. The parcels tumbled out onto the floor along with the enclosed packet of letters which was bound by the rubber band and the yellow square of paper bearing the following postal stamp which reads "COURTRIGHT PM 19 VIII 77 ONT".
Presumably the date was October 19, 1977.
The packet contains 6 letters properly addressed, stamped, postmarked and self-addressed.
I am sending them to you for your attention by registered mail this afternoon-
I received them yesterday.
-as I feel very strongly that someone in parliament should be made aware of the neglect that residents of Canada receive at the hands of our present postal service. "Service" is not the correct term for this type of error in directing mail. You will note that the 6 letters were sent to Montreal, P.Q., and here I am with them in hand in Whitehorse, Yukon.
I am certain the senders have been greatly inconvenienced-an understatement. to say the least.
They were received unopened, and they are being returned unopened across the aisle today. I hope that they are not secret material.
March 21, 1978


POINTS OF ORDER
Hon. Norman A. Cafik (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order with respect to the question of privilege with which Your Honour dealt earlier, relating to the question raised by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) and the suggestion of Your Honour that perhaps we should have a little time to reflect upon it, I wonder if it would be agreeable to defer the matter until tomorrow so that the House leaders can have an opportunity to discuss the most appropriate way of dealing with the question. I suggest this so that we might be able to resolve the issue. It would be helpful to us if we had that opportunity.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I hope we will not delay this kind of matter for another day. There has been quite an appropriate delay during which Your Honour had to read a considerable number of precedents. I think the issues are fairly clear, and I think we can deal with the matter in the normal way today. It is important that it be dealt with today, having regard to the nature of the matter. I hope that the motion will be put and that it will be referred by the House. However, I do not think we should delay another day.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think I should be clear on the practice which would ordinarily be followed. 1 think hon. members should understand that the question for the Chair is whether a motion put forward by any hon. member at any given time has with it that character of privilege which gives it priority over other business. If the Chair once decides that the matter does affect the privileges of members, the Chair then gives the motion priority on that basis. I think this is an accurate description of what has often been roughly described as prima facie questions of privilege, which is not really an accurate description. In any case, having made that finding, the matter then, by the very virtue of that decision, has priority over other business. If not, then the hon. member is quite often invited to try to reintroduce his motion in the ordinary way. However, in this case, having made that finding, the matter would proceed as a matter of priority over other House business.
If the Chair were to be advised that there had been some tentative agreement or preliminary agreement to defer the discussion to some other time, I would naturally take that into account. Failing any advice or agreement on that basis, I would have to put down the matter as a matter of priority business.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we would not object if there were a deferral for an hour or something like that, but I agree with the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) that the matter has been delayed long enough, that it ought to be dealt with today, and that in the absence of unanimous consent to set aside Your Honour's recommendation, it should proceed today.
Point of Order-Mr. W. Baker


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be quite agreeable to our side if there were a delay for an hour so that we can decide, in the interests of all members of parliament, the best way to deal with this. We would be quite agreeable. If there were a specific motion before the House as a result of the ruling-


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is.


Norman Augustine Cafik: My understanding, and I may be incorrect, is that if it is a specific motion to refer the matter to a given committee, that is one question. If it is a motion which is debatable as a question of privilege without any particular course for the matter to take, I think then there would be reason to have some short delay for consultation between House leaders. It is unclear in my mind at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: I think we should all realize that the language of the motion is such that it ought to be examined. That might be useful, bearing in mind that this matter is going to be put on the floor for discussion, if necessary, at some time today. I do not know. I think it is ordinary to expect that it ought to be examined to see whether there might be consent with respect to the disposition of the motion. That might very well be productive, so some short delay might be countenanced. However, I cannot impose that delay or initiate it. I would have to be advised that there is some agreement for delay of a few minutes or an hour or so, and therefore I will attend to other business to see whether there can be consultation and agreement.


MR. BAKER (GRENVILLE-CARLETON)-PARLIAMENTARY APPROVAL FOR PEACEKEEPING FORCE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to thank the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) for delaying his departure from the House for a few moments. I know he is busy.
The hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) raised a very important point today in the question period, and that was the problem we face with respect to a request which may be made for peacekeeping forces in the Middle East and the relationship of that problem to discussion in this parliament of that matter, which would potentially commit Canadian armed forces from all across the country, from constituencies represented by hon. members in this House. I realize that the issue is tentative, but I also realize that events seem to be moving in such a direction that a request is going to be made.
I wonder if it would be appropriate if I were to suggest, in the course of this point of order, that the Secretary of State for External Affairs study the precedents, particularly the precedent which was created or acted upon in 1973, I believe it was, when a peacekeeping force was sent to Viet Nam. As I recollect it, on that occasion the then secretary of state for external affairs put down a resolution, and there was a day's debate on that matter so that the Parliament of Canada could express itself on what was quite an important thing in terms of the involvement itself and so that the government knew that

March 21, 1978
Report of Committees
whatever it did on that occasion, it had the backing of the Parliament of Canada. If something should occur during the Easter recess, between today and April 3, would the minister at least undertake to explore the possibility of putting down a resolution as soon as we come back or, if he cannot do that, would he undertake to consult with the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) so that it might be done shortly thereafter, but before the troops are finally committed?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for having given me as much advance notice as was possible on this matter. I think he realizes that 1 am at a distinct disadvantage in this particular exchange, because I am not the expert on the rules the hon. member is. On the other hand, I have no quarrel with the premise of the question. It is entirely appropriate that parliament should have an opportunity to be fully apprised of the circumstances under which Canadian forces are committed to various peacekeeping activities. The technique for doing so is one on which I will be glad to consult with the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). Also 1 will look at the very good precedents established by my predecessor, the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Sharp).
I realize, as I think the House and the hon. member do, that there are certain problems with the process because of the necessity, as indeed in the present case, for a degree of confidentiality with regard to what is being proposed. 1 hope I have demonstrated my willingness to make the House as aware as I can of all the circumstances. I undertake to consider very seriously the proposals of the hon. member in finding out the best and most appropriate way to meet the spirit of what he has suggested.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works-Mr. Leblanc (Laurier).

[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates-Mr. Leblanc (Laurier) (for the chairman).
[Editor's Note: For texts of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to lay upon the table the seventh annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), and following my commitment to this House, I should like to table a report of the Joint Public Service Commission and Department of Manpower and Immigration Study Team regarding the employment of physically and mentally handicapped people in the federal Public Service, together with a document describing the government's plans in this respect, in both official languages.


Mr. Speaker:: Statements by ministers.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House today of new and expanded programs in the Directorate of Multiculturalism-


POINT OF ORDER
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As I understand it, a few moments ago Your Honour pointed out that precedence should be given to privilege. That matter has not been dealt with and should be dealt with at once, rather than allowing extraneous matters to be brought in now. I take the strongest possible objection to any delay in connection with a matter involving privilege. As Your Honour was most clear and definite in the views you expressed, I feel it is only fair this matter should be dealt with at once. After all, tomorrow we adjourn for a period of several days, and by that time the question of privilege will have been dissipated by the passage of time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is no danger of the matter being dissipated by the passage of time. What I have indicated to the House is that I have decided already that the matter contains privilege, and therefore enjoys priority. In my opinion, therefore, it would take priority over any other order of the day. I am taking simply a moment to conclude routine proceedings, which gives an opportunity to see whether there may be some agreement on the motion. If not, then I will call
March 21, 1978

it ahead of any order of the day this very afternoon. There is no danger. I thought we should conclude routine proceedings first, which would allow for some interval in order for reaction to take place, to see whether there might in fact be an agreement to send the motion to committee without debate. I do not know. I am only delaying it for a few moments.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that may very well be, but that declaration does not give precedence to privilege. The hon. Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Cafik) seems to be very anxious to make a speech. 1 know the House will listen with anticipated joy to the revelations he will make. But the fact remains that before this question of privilege can be postponed, there must be consent on the part of the House. Personally I take the strongest possible objection to any delay in that connection.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think I can put the matter another way: when I came into the House I had the option of going through routine proceedings and dealing with questions of privilege at the end. I could have held back my decision just as easily until just prior to orders of the day. That would have put the House at the distinct disadvantage of facing the unexpected discussion of a motion this afternoon without even a few minutes to anticipate. Instead, I have advanced that decision on my part to the beginning of routine proceedings. I have indicated that I would call the matter as the first order of business for the day.


MULTICULTURALISM
Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House today of new and expanded programs in the Directorate of Multiculturalism. As hon. members know, on October 8, 1971, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) recognized the importance of Canadian heritage by announcing the government's policy on multiculturalism. On that occasion he said:
For although there are two official languages, there is no official culture, nor does any ethnic group take precedence over any other. No citizen or group of citizens is other than Canadian and all should be treated fairly.
Multiculturalism has two dimensions: vertical and horizontal.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Norman Augustine Cafik: The vertical dimension is designed to encourage and support cultural pluralism among the ethno-cultural groups-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Who was the author of your speech?


Mr. Paproski:: Who wrote it? Was it John Munro?
Multiculturalism


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I know hon. members opposite have very little respect for multiculturalism in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Norman Augustine Cafik: But I think they should at least listen.
The vertical dimension is designed to encourage and support cultural pluralism among the ethno-cultural groups, while the impact of the horizontal dimension is to ensure that multiculturalism and its objectives are taken into account by the government at all levels.
In terms of the vertical dimension, I am pleased to announce that the government will provide $50 million through the Multiculturalism directorate over the next five years to encourage equal opportunities for Canada's cultural groups to share their rich cultural traditions with all Canadians. The new emphasis of multiculturalism will be "unity through human understanding." Additional resources in this coming fiscal year of $2.5 million will enable the multicultural program to provide support to a wide range of activities which will increase the awareness of multicultural reality in Canada.
National ethno-cultural organizations now will have financial assistance available to them toward their operating costs. Also, special consideration can be given now to projects promoting the integration of immigrants. Increased assistance also will be provided to all Canadian cultural groups for projects aiding in group development, the performing and visual arts, literary publications, and Canadian ethnic studies. Programs currently under way will be expanded so as to provide more flexibility to the unique projects involved.
Over and above the programs administered by the Multiculturalism Directorate, Treasury Board allocates an additional annual budget of $2.4 million to the cultural agencies for multicultural activities undertaken by the National Museum of Man, the National Film Board, the National Library, and the Public Archives. These cultural agencies will continue to enable Canadians to become more aware of our rich heritage.
In terms of the horizontal dimension, the directorate and I are very concerned about the problems of visible minorities, the human rights question, equal opportunities for Canadians of all backgrounds, promoting the concept of Canada's cultural pluralism among all Canadians, and reinforcing Canadian unity.
In over-all budget terms the program, including funding for multicultural acitivities through the cultural agencies, has grown from an amount in 1977-1978 of $8,407 million to $10,196 million in 1978-1979, an increase of 28.8 per cent in this last year, showing the deep commitment of the government to this program. This does not take into account special funds given through other departmental activities related to this important area of public policy.
As the Prime Minister said, "A policy of multiculturalism within an officially bilingual framework is basically the conscious support of individual freedom of choice." We are free to be ourselves. But this cannot and should not be left to chance. If freedom of choice is in danger for some group, it is in

March 21, 1978
Multiculturalism
danger for all. The objective of our policy is the retention and development of our cultural groups to the degree that a given group exhibits a desire for this. Government aid to cultural groups will continue to proceed on the basis of aid to self-effort.
The special role of the government is to provide opportunities to all Canadians to realize these goals, so that they may retain their values in a free society where Canadians of divergent backgrounds are treated with mutual respect and equality.


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Before I begin my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that I should have been given the courtesy of receiving much more notice of the minister's statement here this afternoon than I received. Even the courtesy of two hours' notice-a minimum amount of time-was denied me. I hope that the government and the minister responsible will look into this matter and correct the injustice once and for all.
We on this side of the House are not really surprised by the statement made by the Minister of State (Multiculturalism) (Mr. Cafik) here in the House this afternoon. The minister's statement typifies the government's "here today, gone tomorrow" attitude regarding multiculturalism-reaching a crescendo in an election year and then dramatically falling flat on its face once the election is over.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: The government has announced an amount of $50 million for the multicultural program over a period of five years. When this is broken down it amounts to $10 million a year, an increase of slightly less than $2 million a year over the present budgeted amount. A $50 million promise really means only a $2 million possibility. It goes back to four years ago when this government first promised to increase the multicultural budget to $10 million annually. It has taken the government four years and another pending election to reiterate this promise.
I am distressed, as my colleagues are distressed, that this government has time and time again used multiculturalism to manipulate and curry favour with the ethnic communities all across our land, especially in election years. I am sure that this ploy by the government has finally run its course, because our ethnic communities have become wise to the ways of this government and will not be taken in or fooled again.
When you consider that our ethnic communities-and I am referring to those which have neither English nor French as their ethnic backgrounds-represent more than one third of the population of Canada, a budget of $10 million annually is an effrontery of the first magnitude. I am sure it will not go unnoticed by ethnic communities from one end of Canada to the other.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: We in our party have a considerable stake in a true and honest concept of multiculturalism for Canada. This is well evidenced by the ethnic composition of the membership of our party. We have a higher level of ethnic representation than any other federal political party. So, you can understand, Mr. Speaker, that our concern about multiculturalism comes straight from the heart.
In conclusion, I would like to quote from a letter I received today from Dr. Hlynka, a member of the Ukranian Canadian community of Winnipeg. I am quoting him because his thoughts are our thoughts and really the thoughts of all ethnic people in Canada today. Dr. Hlynka said:
I want to see justice for the cause of multiculturalism in Canada. To my mind that means that all three components of the Canadian nation-English, French, and multicultural-must be clearly and fully recognized ... in any revised constitution, and in the hearts and minds of all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: This is the goal, the challenge, and the direction that my party is taking and will continue to take in our constant pursuit and search for equal treatment and justice for all Canadians regardless of their ethnic origins or backgrounds.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I think the most interesting thing about the statement made today by the Minister of State (Multiculturalism) (Mr. Cafik) is its timing. It seems to me that the pattern of announcements concerning multiculturalism in Canada has a lot to do with elections. In 1972 there were many announcements about multiculturalism, and there was a special minister appointed. 1 might add that that minister did a very good job, and he still sits in the House today. He is the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz).
However, as soon as the election was over in 1974 the minister was booted out of office, and multiculturalism did not have a minister to answer for it in the House. We then had three years of the government's paying absolutely no attention whatsoever to multiculturalism in this country, but, of course, when an election comes up again, we have a new minister appointed. It is just a few weeks before the election call is likely to come, and we have an announcement about more money coming into the area of multiculturalism in Canada. It is blatant partisanship. The government is trying to use the ethnic people in our country as election pawns. It is looking at what used to be a traditional Liberal vote in Canada, and it is nervous about that vote, including the Italian vote in Toronto.
The government believes that it can buy the ethnic people in this country for just a few bucks of their own tax money, and I think that is a very shameful tactic by this government. It is something that the people of this country will not forget.
All of us agree that extra money should be spent on multiculturalism. We have all said that time and time again in the House, but what I am saying is that the timing of this announcement is more than suspicious. The government should be ashamed of this. There are more and more announcements being made now that are strikingly political and strikingly
March 21, 1978

partisan. When you do that on issue after issue, there is going to be more and more cynicism toward all political parties. The most shameful thing about the announcement is its timing, an attempt by the Liberal party to vie for more votes in the coming election.
I was rather surprised by the support of multiculturalism voiced by the hon. member from the Conservative party because I, along with other members of this House, read with great interest that the leader of his party was saying before Christmas that he would consider abolishing the ministry of multiculturalism in this country.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is not true.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A good friend in the Senate, Senator Yuzyk, is now organizing a write-in campaign to his leader to try keep the department of multiculturalism intact, should the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) become prime minister of this country. The time has come when we should stop playing politics with the people of Canada who come from other than French or English origins and treat them as real Canadians. They are citizens in spite of where they come from, whether it be Europe or anywhere else in the world. They have helped to build Canada and make it what it is. It is about time we realized they are good Canadians and that they have made their contribution, whether they be European or from some other part of the world. Hopefully, along with Canadians of English and French origin they can help us keep this country together and make it a prosperous place in the years ahead.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, like the two hon. members who spoke before me, I see that this announcement is closely linked to the coming election which is already being fought by ministers and members in the Eastern Townships, particularly in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the free evolution and fulfillment of all ethnic groups in Canada is a most commendable objective as related quite simply to the human development that every ethnic group is entitled to have. But I see that once again the government is using those self-evident factors to focus attention on its problem of national unity which again it considers as an opportunity of drawing sympathy toward the party which under the circumstances is now running this country. So when they talk about "unity through human understanding" they could have talked a lot more accurately, as my colleague from Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) often suggests, of "harmony through human understanding." That would be more accurate. But since they have had this habit for months of focussing everything on national unity so this problem of national unity will be the exclusive realm of the party now in power, Mr. Speaker, it is always a bit strange to see them use everything to bring all issues back to this fundamental question. Again, it appears on page 3 of this statement as follows:
Multiculturalism
.. . promoting the concept of Canada's cultural pluralism among all Canadians and reinforcing Canadian unity.
They always talk continuously about national unity and the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is going into an election campaign with the thought that he is the only one who can salvage national unity. Mr. Speaker, we share the same view, we all want this essential harmony if our country is to evolve and develop. That is obvious. But we would urge that all decisions made by this government not be tinged with that electoral aspect which kills genuine, good intentions.
Here is another point before I sit down. Multiculturalism should not be assimilated with biculturalism or bilingualism. It will be remembered, and the statement refers to it, that the right hon. Prime Minister was remarkably ambiguous with respect to the distinction to be made between the two. If I consider the quotation of the right hon. Prime Minister that we have here to prove that ambiguity, I will say, Mr. Speaker, that this is typical of the party which is now running this country-ambiguous, opportunist, not knowing how to administer in a really objective way, having brought this country to this culminating point of national crisis and claiming to be the only one able to solve it because perhaps it was the only one to bring it about. So, to quote the right hon. Prime Minister:
A policy of multiculturalism within an officially bilingual framework is basically the conscious support of individual freedom of choice.
Mr. Speaker, that sentence is meaningless. It does not fit into everyday life. To make such a connection is sheer stupidity in my view. There is no connection whatsoever between bilingualism and multiculturalism. Bilingualism is the recognized fact that two languages are used in this country, and multiculturalism is the individual's fulfillment on the basis of what he is. We are all for that, but when they try to confuse the issue so that it means both bilingualism and national unity, clearly the government are once more playing politics.
It is a sad reflection that in an area as factual as multiculturalism, the free evolution and fulfillment of individuals in this country, such a serious issue is used for purely electioneering purposes. This is evident, Mr. Speaker, from the monies that are allocated. Even though they try to swell the amount to $50 million by computing over a five year basis, it is only $10 million a year and no more. And the way prices are going at the current inflation rate, we know full well the practical import of $10 million spread over an area as large as Canada's, a country endowed with so many cultural ethnic groups.
Mr. Speaker, they should also be more specific about including in those groups Canada's Francophones, more plainly the French-Canadians. Because they are not immigrant contributors, but founding partners. Therefore in respect of Frenchspeaking groups of Canadian ancestry, if I may call them, the problem is not the same. There is a question of a basic right issuing prior tenure of the land. So a clear distinction should be made there. French-speaking Canadian minorities that may exist in New Brunswick, Manitoba, British Columbia, and so
80033-39%

March 21, 1978
Multicult uralism
forth have acquired the same rights as the English-speaking minority in Quebec. So I think those two concepts must not be mingled together, and that is exactly what this quotation from the Prime Minister does, and if I go on reading it will be seen how 1 am right.
We are free to be ourselves, but this freedom cannot and should not be left to chance.
Now what does that mean again? Well, these are eggs now being laid by the Prime Minister of our country, and they are square eggs, Mr. Speaker. He goes on:
If freedom of choice is in danger for some group, it is in danger for all.
What choice? What is it all about? Does it relate to the distinction to be made between French Canadians and English Canadians? Is it about ethnic groups? What does it have to do with the subject matter?
So, Mr. Speaker, I should like to take the opportunity of this statement to emphasize those points which will have to be clarified and to bring the government to consider much more seriously all the things and all the areas having to do with the free evolution and fulfilment of individuals in this country.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I understand that after ministerial statements we are allowed to ask a question or two. 1 want to ask one question in particular so that there will be no mistake about the stand of this party in respect to multiculturalism. I resent the member of the socialist party bootlegging in what was a complete untruth.
It is a poor thing to register concern about the multicultural aspect of this country by dipping into the taxpayers' pockets in order to pay him off, and I resent that very much. I want to remind the minister that it is his party, through the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the former minister responsible for multiculturalism, and the present minister, who sat on the government side, when this side of the House introduced an amendment to the Immigration Act to bring in the word multiculturalism. This was a positive step and one which would indicate that we in this House recognized the great contribution-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member please ask the question?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I was just going to ask the question because I saw you out of the corner of my eye and knew I was treading on dangerous ground.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The minister says hear, hear! What information does the minister have for the Canadian people now in terms of recommending to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen), in light of this great concern about the multiculturalism aspect of this country, that he introduce

an amendment to the Immigration Act? Mr. Speaker, I see the Attorney General (Mr. Basford) bothering the Minister of State (Multiculturalism) (Mr. Cafik) when I am asking an extremely important question. Where is the respect around here?
The minister promised me that he was going to take this matter up with his colleagues. I should like to know if he has done so in order that an amendment to the Immigration Act, which would be a positive step, would be introduced to insert the word "multiculturalism". This would give some credibility to the minister's concern.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the matter raised by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) is a legitimate one. There is no doubt whatsoever that the ethno-cultural community-the non-Francophone or non-Anglophone community-put forward strong representations about the inclusion of a reference to the multicultural aspect of our society in the Immigration Act. I was not involved, as I was chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs at the same time. In any event, I am quite cognizant of the genuine desire of the ethno-cultural community to have some substantive base in legislation for the multicultural concept. I must admit that I relate favourably to that genuine concern.
I have indicated previously to the hon. member for Hamilton West that I was looking into the possibilities of dealing with this question. Now that the Immigration Act is a fact of law there are better ways of looking at this question in order to achieve more substantive references to multiculturalism. It has been suggested, not only in this House but by the public generally, that there may be some desirability to refer to multiculturalism in any new constitution that might be brought forward. Quite clearly that would be one of the most significant ways that one could give recognition to this concept in the law and in the constitution itself. That is one avenue to consider. There are other avenues that should be considered.
Should we have a legislative base for multiculturalism itself by virtue of a special act of parliament which would promote programs and develop concepts? 1 believe that is an area where more significant achievement could be made than by opening up the Immigration Act and making a reference specifically in that act. I would draw to the hon. member's attention that the concerns of this House, and the concerns of the public at large, are my concern. I am addressing myself to this question so that we can give important and symbolic recognition to the multicultural dimension of Canada, which is a pragmatic reality of our nation. Whether to do that in terms of legislation or acts of parliament is a useful matter to consider. My directorate is actively pursuing ways and means by which this may be better done in order to achieve the objectives which have been brought to my attention.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That was very interesting, very interesting but to me it is still foot dragging. We are talking about a
March 21, 1978

constitution, which I understand the minister just stole from a spokesman for our party. We are talking about a special act. The way this government moves leaves a lot to be desired. It is very well for the minister to stand up and be so oratorically brilliant, which has not moved me one bit.
It would be very easy for the minister to get the consent of his colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, to bring in this one very simple immigration matter to give it some credibility. That is what I am asking the minister. I appreciate him saying that we can amend the constitution. When is that going to be? I want concrete action now. The minister talks about a special act or special acts. When will that occur? I want action now. Surely the minister can consider with some sympathy the submission which I am making at the moment. In this way he will have credibility. If he does not accept it, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect and in light of the great love I have for my colleague, I believe he will have destroyed his credibility. He should take concrete steps immediately and at least start with the Immigration Act.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is deeply concerned about the credibility of myself as a minister, and of the department or Directorate of Multiculturalism, I am sure he could take many positive steps to assure that particular desirable objective. I would appreciate any support that he could offer. But it would seem to me that the hon. member ought to be as much concerned about substantive achievements to ensure the well-being of the ethno-cultural communities and that they are brought fully and equally into our society as he would be about the symbolic matter to which he seems to be attaching so much importance. If we were to put the words which the hon. member has in mind into the Immigration Act, I do not think it would make one iota of difference in terms of the application of that act. I think the hon. member would recognize that-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I do not.


Norman Augustine Cafik: You may not recognize it, but I thought being a lawyer you ought to. In any event, it seems to me that when we look at the increase now of about 28.8 per cent in multicultural budgeting this year in a time of restraint, the hon. member would recognize that indicates in itself the sincerity with which we address this important question. I would think the ethnocultural communities are prepared to accept delivery of hard facts and programs for their benefit as evidence of our credibility rather than the pious words of any hon. member who is locked in to such symbolic gestures.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If we have another question, I think we ought to keep it brief.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for the minister which he should be able to answer briefly. He is speaking here of a budget of $50 million over five years. That means there will be an average budget of $10 million a year. He goes on in his
Multiculturalism
statement to indicate that the budget in this election year will be $10,196 million, higher than the average. Taking account of inflation which this government has not quite wrestled to the ground, that means, given an aggregate of $50 million over a five-year period, there will be a diminution, a winding down of the expenditures contemplated by the Government of Canada on multicultural activities as we move farther away from election year. Will the minister of state tell the House of Commons what calendar the government contemplates for the winding down of the expenditure on multiculturalism, which is spelled out in his statement?


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I would be very glad to reply to that question. Perhaps the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) might have a look at this statement again, read it, and find out what in fact it really says. He will note that within some of the paragraphs in the statement we talk about budgeting through the cultural agencies as well, which amounts to roughly $2.5 million a year, which is over and above the $10 million. This means that the over-all budgetary projection within the cultural agencies and within the program itself, all directed toward multicultural programs, will be in the neighbourhood of $65 million within the next five years. There is no projection for decreases in funding whatsoever; there is a significant increase.
I would also point out there is some concern about an election year. If the opposition think that our programs are so desirable and so attractive that it worries them that they are brought forward at this time, all 1 can say is we accept the compliment. When the question is raised of why now, I would draw to the attention of hon. members that the fiscal year ends at the end of this month, and we are talking about budgeting for the next fiscal year which begins in just a few days. It is for that reason, and for the reason that I want to be courteous to members of the House of Commons, that I draw to their attention what the programs and priorities of the government are for the forthcoming year. That is the hard reality of the timing at this particular moment.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that is really quite an incredible statement, even for the minister. If he is at all consistent I suppose we will expect that each of the other ministers of the Crown, however many there are-


Some hon. Members:: Sixty-two.


Charles Joseph Clark: -will be getting up before the House rises for Easter to spell out the increases that they contemplate. Just so I can be clear on what the minister is saying, may we have a brief, unequivocal commitment by the minister that he can answer yes or no-is the minister giving us a commitment now that it is not the intention of the government to reduce the expenditure on multicultural activities in any of the subsequent years in the five-year period? Yes or no?


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite acceptable for the hon. member to put the question, but not really to direct how it ought to be answered. I would say that in terms of our commitment to multiculturalism it is ongoing, it is larger than

March 21, 1978
Multiculturalism
last year, and it will continue to be larger in the future. It is not our intention to cut back funding for multicultural programs.
I would make one other point that I think is important. The question was raised and alluded to by the Leader of the Opposition that the funding we have for about one third of the Canadian people, being $10 million, is rather inadequate. I make two points in response.
First, I have yet to hear, other than perhaps today indirectly, anybody in the opposition in my presence suggest that there ought to be more funding for multiculturalism. I would welcome anybody doing that. I have only had a couple of questions in the House of Commons as Minister of Multiculturalism, which indicates the degree of interest being taken in that regard.
I would point out that all ethno-cultural communities are Canadian and they benefit from all government programs in Canada as Canadians. The amount of money we are talking about is money specifically earmarked for them as ethno-cultural Canadians over and above all the benefits that every Canadian in this country enjoys.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister will find that one reason he does not receive very many questions has to do very directly with the quality of his answers. I wonder if he will tell us now, since he has refused to give us a commitment, that there will not be a reduction in subsequent years of the budget for multiculturalism. What portion of that estimated $50 million over the next five years will be directed toward advertising, and what portion will be directed toward administration?


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I would first indicate that I did not refuse to give a commitment that we would not cut back on multiculturalism. I was very precise in that regard. It is not the intention of the government to cut back in any way on multicultural programs. I make that very clear, if my words were not as clear as the hon. member could understand. In any event, in terms of the budget, the advertising budget of the Directorate of Multiculturalism is half a million dollars a year. That budget is directed to the ethnic media in order to be able to communicate through that important instrument of communication with the ethno-cultural community. That is an important aspect of our program.
In terms of actual granting programs, in the neighbourhood of $5 million will be made available directly in grants through the numerous programs that we have within our directorate. In terms of operational funding, the amount is $2.6 million. I would draw to the attention of hon. members that that $2.6 million is not strictly for operational expense. It carries within it funding for studies that are undertaken, for example, the ethnic attitude study which should be tabled very shortly. It deals with special projects that I am involved in now, for example, with the visible minorities and how we are trying to deal with that. Contract funding will deal with specific policy

areas that are very important to the continuation of this program and the achievement of objectives to provide equal opportunity and to overcome disadvantages to the ethno-cultural community.


Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to ask the Minister of State (Multiculturalism) (Mr. Cafik) a question, I would first like to thank him for his statement and also to pay tribute to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for announcing the official policy of multiculturalism in 1971.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Haidasz: What amount of the $10 million expenditure per annum will be directed to the ethnic press and media for other than advertising, something they have requested for some time?


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is raising an important question. I draw to his attention, and of other hon. members if they are not aware, that we are now having a two-day conference with the ethnic press here in Ottawa to deal with a wide range of programs and policies. The aspect that I am dealing with in multiculturalism is hopefully to establish a relationship with the ethno-cultural press in which they can give valid and useful advice to myself as to how we may best assist the ethnic press in legitimate and proper terms. In terms of funding, for example, the Ethnic Press Federation have been concerned about support funding for their national body. At the moment, no decision has been taken in that regard. I have had a number of representations. Hopefully, I will have the opportunity to discuss that aspect of the problem with the Ethnic Press Federation within the next two days, if that is what the hon. member has in mind. I think that the general substance of the comment is a recognition of the importance of the ethnic press in Canada. I certainly agree that they perform a very valuable-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will conclude the questioning with the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) and the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty).


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief question. I hope I can have a brief answer. In talking to many ethnic groups, one of the problems they have brought to me on many occasions is the lack of any granting of funds for capital purposes such as helping to renovate a hall or build a new one. In a sense, this is very important because it is the centre of most of the activity for multicultural groups. Has the minister's department studied and will it give consideration to providing some sort of granting of funds for capital purposes to aid in the construction or renovation of halls, maybe on a matching basis along the lines of Wintario?


Norman Augustine Cafik: Yes, Mr. Speaker, consideration is being given to that. With the adjustments in the program that we have announced here today, we did not move in the direction of providing funding for capital projects. It would take an enormous amount of money. I should point out that on other levels
March 21, 1978

of the federal government within other departments, through job creation programs and so on, ethno-cultural community organizations are as entitled to make application in those directions for those purposes as any other group in Canada.
In the area that the hon. member is concerned about, the new program dealing with operational support in group development will provide funding for continuing activity for a period of up to three years for operational support. This is an area that is also of considerable concern to the community. We have moved in that direction at this time. I think it will be welcomed by the communities. In terms of specific funding for capital purposes, hopefully they will get the funding they require through other activities of the government rather than directly through our budget.


Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I will not take much of the time of the House. Having listened to the minister's statement, I simply want to make the observation that it is apparent the minister is, as usual, reaching ever higher platitudes of achievement.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I appreciate the compliment.


BROADCASTING ACT
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-428, to amend the Broadcasting Act (educational use of programs).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to enable school boards to tape radio and television broadcasts for use in schools at a cost that is not prohibitive and without incurring liability for copyright infringement. To this end, the bill would empower the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission to require the necessary contractual arrangements to be worked out between stations and networks on the one hand and authors and artists on the other.


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

Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) moved: for leave to introduce Bill S-2, to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. C. Douglas (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 282, 532, 1,113, 1,148, 1,241, 1,250,
1,260 and 1,340. I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
[ Text]


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the Canadian Government Photo Centre obtained (a) part-time (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and, if not, from what estimates are they paid?
3.	By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies (b) average hourly rate paid to employees (c) total amount paid by the Canadian Government Photo Centre in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the National Film Board as follows: 1. The Canadian Government Photo Centre has obtained (a) part-time and (b) fulltime employees from private employment agencies in Ontario only. In 1975/76 17 part-time and one full-time employee were engaged in this manner. In 1976/77 23 part-time and three full-time employees were so engaged.
2.	The Canadian Government Photo Centre operates on a Revolving Fund and is dependent on revenue from sales to finance its operation. Casual employees are therefore not paid from either main or supplementary estimates but from revenues earned.
3.	(a) In the province of Ontario the average hourly rate paid to employment agencies in 1975/76 was $4.09 for parttime employees and $3.10 for full-time employees; for 1976/ 77 the average hourly rate paid to employment agencies was $4.27 for part-time employees and $4.30 for full-time employees, (b) Information not known, (c) The Canadian Government Photo Centre paid in 1975/76 and in 1976/77 a total amount of $39,050.06 and $46,889.31 respectively.


Mr. Howie: March 21, 1978
Order Paper Questions
The sampling locations, the maximum levels observed and the dates of collection are as follows:
Calgary	1.68 pCi/m3	September 25Edmonton	0.91 pCi/m3	September 25Fort Churchill	0.73 pCi/m3	October 2Fredericton	0.58 pCi/m3	September 29Inuvik	0.56 pCi/m3	September 28Montreal	0.48 pCi/m3	October 12Moosonee	0.59 pCi/m3	September 27Regina	1.43 pCi/m3	September 29St. John's	0.58 pCi/m3	October 5Saskatoon	0.83 pCi/m3	September 29Sault Ste. Marie	0.57 pCi/m3	October 1Thunder Bay	0.78 pCi/m3	September 28Toronto	0.79 pCi/m3	September 30Vancouver	0.53 pCi/m3	September 24Whitehorse	1.54 pCi/m3	September 22Windsor	1.45 pCi/m3	September 25Winnipeg	0.97 pCi/m3	October 3Yellowknife	0.64 pCi/m3	September 30Although these increases were readily	detected above thepre-test national average of 0.05 picocuries per cubic meter	(pCi/m3), the absolute	values are very	small. The healtheffects arising from breathing radioactivity in air at these	levels for the short period are negligible.	In addition, radioactivity in pasteurized milk was measured. Increases of the radioactive element, iodine-131, were observed at 10 out of 16	Support toProjects DealingSupport to	with theIndividual	Non-MedicalYear	Athletes	Use of Drugs1970-71	Nil	Nil1971-72	Nil	Nil1972-73	Nil	Nil1973-74	Nil	Nil1974-75	Nil	Nil1975-76	Nil	36,2501976-77	1,800	Nil
sampling locations. The cities, the maximum levels measured and the dates of collection are as follows:
Calgary	19 pCi//	October 1-7Edmonton	14 pCi//	October 8-14Halifax	27 pCi//	October 1-7Moncton	20 pCi//	October 1-7Ottawa	29 pCi//	October 8-14Quebec	13 pCi//	October 8-14St. John's	13 pCi//	October 8-14Sault Ste. Marie	18 pCi//	October 1-7Vancouver	18 pCi//	September 24-30Windsor	55 pCi//	October 8-14
These levels are not of concern to public health because they are a small fraction of the maximum permissible concentration of 2000 pCi//. Moreover, the increases were observed for only a short period.


Mr. Rodriguez: For each fiscal year since 1970, what amount was spent in the Constituency of Nickel Belt by the Department of National Health and Welfare and those agencies that report to it?


Monique Bégin: Contributions under the New Horizons Program	Operating Costs of Regional Office (Sudbury)	TotalNil	Not available	Not availableNil	Not available	Not available8,900	Not available	Not available43,376	107,900	151,2767,607	128,800	136,40732,346	125,300	193,89637,757	151,500	191,057
In addition to the above, the Department of National Health and Welfare has incurred numerous other expenditures in the province of Ontario, but it is not possible to isolate these expenditures on a constituency basis.


Mr. Yewchuk: because the caloric value of both xylitol and sugar is about 4 kilocalories per gram. Since in Canada, dietary treatment of diabetics emphasizes control of calorie intake, the use of xylitol as a substitute for sugar is not advocated even though xylitol is absorbed more slowly than sucrose and seems to lack a hyperglycemic effect. Xylitol has advantages as a substitute for sugar in chewing gum because it is non-cariogenic.
3. The Department of National Health and Welfare has considered the problem linked with the future use of xylitol by diabetics. At present, xylitol is used only in "sugar-free" (or "sugarless") chewing gums. It is not permitted in other foods for special dietary use including calorie-reduced and low calorie foods and carbohydrate-reduced foods. Since these are the only special dietary foods intended for use by diabetics, it is apparent that the Department in no way encourages the use of xylitol by diabetics, nor does it permit its inclusion in foods normally used by diabetics. Further evaluation of the effect of xylitol in diabetics is being carried out by the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB).


Mrs. Pigott: 1.	For each month from September 1977 to January 1978, how many application kits were distributed under the Canadian Home Insulation Plan?
2.	How many completed application forms were (a) received (b) approved and what was the total dollar amount?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: am advised as follows by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation: 1 and 2. The number of application kits distributed, received and approved, by month, from September 1977 to January 1978 are summarized in the table following:
Applications
Kits	Received	Approved	Month	Distributed	Number	$0001977-	September	29,833	113	-	-October	25,155	2,072	689	154November	11,897	3,496	1,581	355December	7,730	3,318	3,439	7561978-	January	9,793	4,123	2,857	655TOTAL	84,408	13,122	8,566	1,920


Mr. Robinson: Is the government aware that Saudi Arabia has given Sydney University $5.5 million to continue solar energy research and, if so, have arrangements been made for government officials responsible for the development of Canada's renewable resources to lease with the Sydney research team?


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The government is aware that Saudi Arabia has given Sydney University $5.5 million to continue and expand solar research. Government officials are familiar with the solar energy research at the University of Sydney and, as a result of the visit of the Hon. Alastair
Order Paper Questions
Gillespie, Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, to Australia in January 1977, an exchange of information between Canada and Australia on solar energy is underway.


Mr. Masniuk: 1.	Does the government plan to pave the (a) Alaska (b) Klondike (c) Robert Campbell (d) Dempsters highways in the Yukon Territory and, if so, in each case, what is the work schedule?
2.	Does the government plan to pave the (a) Mackenzie (b) new Laird (c) Hay River-Yellowknife highways (nos. 2, 1 & 3) in the Northwest Territories and, if so, in each case, what is the work schedule?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1. (a) The Shakwak project, which includes paving the Alaska Highway from the Alaska-Yukon border to Haines Junction and the Haines Road south of Haines Junction, will be carried out between 1978 and 1989. The first sections will be paved from km 230.4 to 255.4 and from km 1635.5 to 1664.5 in 1980. The schedule shows different sections to be paved each year until 1989. However, the tentative schedule is dependent on the pipeline construction schedule and upon the results of the EARP panel hearings, (b) Paving was started on M. 94-104 in 1977 and will be finished in 1978. Mile 0-20 was completed previously but an overlay will be added. Paving of M. 20-35 is planned for 1978-79. (c) Paving of M. 0-6.34 was completed in 1976-77. (d) No paving is planned at present.
2. (a) Paving is planned from M. 0-51.5 (NWT-Alberta border) at Enterprise. Widening and gravelling will be carried out from 1979-80 to 1981-82 and paving is scheduled from 1980-81 to 1983-84. (b) No paving is planned at present, (c) It is expected to pave M. 0-22.5 of the Hay River highway in 1979-80. No paving is planned at present for the Yellowknife highway.


Mr. McKinnon: Has $123,735 worth of inflatable landing boats been ordered from Nautylatex Canada Ltd. for the Armed Forces and, if so (a) which element of the Forces is to receive them (b) how many have been ordered?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Yes. (a) Land force combat arms, Land Force field engineers, Maritime surface forces; (b) Three-man reconnaissance boats, 35; Six-man landing boats, 65; Ten-man landing boats, 65; Total, 165.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
3988

March 21, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Rodriguez POINT OF ORDER


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, there has been undue delay in answering some of my questions which go back to last October. One of them relates to the total cost of the CBC in handling the Manitoba election last October 11. I feel this question should have been answered by now. Also, I have had another question on the order paper since December 7 in reference to whether Liberal members are using the DOT telex to send out political messages. I realize the answer could be embarrassing to the government, but I feel three and a half months should be long enough to enable the government to reply to it.


Crawford Douglas: I will certainly take that representation as notice and pass it on to the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Privy Council (Mr. Pinard). I am sure he will have answers ready for the hon. member as soon as possible.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: It is my intention, as I indicated earlier, to put to the House at this point the question on the motion of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) which was the subject of a question of privilege raised again earlier today. The motion is as follows:
That this matter of privilege concerning possible electronic surveillance against myself, the sworn statement of Mr. Warren Hart and the statements of the Solicitor General be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, and that that body be requested to undertake to bring before it any persons having or claiming knowledge of this affair, so that the whole truth may be discovered and publicized in such a way as to restore the confidence of my constituents in the confidentiality of our communications and thus end the breach of privilege which exists.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!
[Mr. Speaker.J
And more than five hon. members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion lost.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[Engl is hs]

Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock, 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 Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz)-Health and Welfare-OHIP-Premium increase proposed in Ontario budget; the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald)-Transport- Movement of potatoes from eastern to central Canada; the hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack)-Northern Development-Frontenac County, Ontario-Construction of temporary bridge to facilitate travel.
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, public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to proceed with the consideration of Bill C-204 and to stand Bill C-202 which precedes it on the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. parliamentary secretary relate correctly to the House that there is agreement to proceed at this time with Bill C-204?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.
External Aid


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances I ask that Bill C-202 be reserved at the request of the government, according to Standing Order 19.
[DOT] (U12)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There remains in priority, over Bill C-204, Bill C-202 which has now open stood at the request of the government. Bill C-204 is the next bill in the ordinary order. Therefore, it can be called without any consent.


FOREIGN AID PROHIBITION ACT
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont) moved: that Bill C-204, to prohibit aid to foreign countries violating human rights, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.
He said; Mr. Speaker, the bill that is up for discussion this afternoon has raised a fair bit of controversy and a good deal of interest across the country. It is an issue which concerns people not only in this country but in a number of other countries, with regard to our international responsibilities as they affect the growing concern and mounting apprehension over the loss of human rights in countries with which we have an economic relationship and to which we provide, in some instances, a good deal of economic assistance.
I can frankly say that this bill has generated a response to my office unlike any other international issue in the 12 years I have been a member here. Literally hundreds of letters have arrived from individuals and organizations across Canada offering public support for the principle that strategic and economic advantage are not the soul legitimate determinants of our nation's foreign policy.
Canadian respect and support for human rights is deep-seated. We are proud of Canada's defence of these principles under the leadership of many prime ministers, certainly that of the former prime minister of the Liberal party and that of the present right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) when he was prime minister of this country. They gave in their own time outstanding leadership with regard to the defence of human rights.
I hope, during the course of a few remarks this afternoon, to mention some of the comments I received. Obviously, because the time is somewhat less than it might normally be for a discussion on an important issue of this kind, I want to provide an opportunity for other members to express their views with regard to it.
It would be fair to say that up until the last few years no serious consideration had been given by any western government to relating the area of economic activity or economic responsibility to the serious violation of human rights that takes place in a number of countries. Even though there was no formal mechanism, or observation, or relationship of these
80033-40'/2

March 21, 1978
External Aid
two aspects of foreign policy, it is not true to say that the consideration of human rights was not a part, if only in an unspoken or unidentified way, of basic foreign policy.
If we were to examine the trading patterns and aid patterns of Canada since World War II, we would notice a wide variation with regard to our response, depending upon our perception of these countries to be countries that would be worthy of funds or economic assistance. Worthy can be defined from many points of view. It can be defined in terms of a serious intent with respect to the development of their own country. It can be defined in terms of whether they share the same kind of strategic or political interests. It can also be defined in terms of whether we have respect for the way in which a government treats its people.
Recently in the United States and in the American Congress initiatives have been taken with regard to programs of foreign aid as they are directed toward countries where there has been a rapid increase in the serious violation of human rights. I think of the particular and growing concern there has been in a number of Latin American countries, some of which the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Duclos), the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), and I, had an opportunity to visit a couple of years ago to examine the serious situation with regard to the loss of basic human rights in those countries.
As a result of American initiatives, beginning roughly in 1974, certain kinds of economic assistance have in fact been terminated to countries like Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay. However, we would have to recognize that the major advance with respect to dealing with this problem occurred with the election of the Carter regime in 1976.
Beginning in 1977, the Carter administration's concern with human rights became a major component of United States foreign policy. Indeed, legislation which has imposed limitations on aid, direct and indirect, to certain designated countries, has been passed by Congress and signed by the President.
We see in particular that under the Foreign Aid Appropriations Act which became law on October 3, 1977, security assistance to Argentina, Chile, Ethiopia, Uruguay, Brazil, El Salvador and Guatemala has been prohibited. In addition, action has been taken in international forums to prevent or limit the role of the American government with regard to foreign aid contributions to countries where there is a serious violation of human rights. This, with the establishment in the U.S. State Department of a new office which would deal directly with the question of human rights and humanitarian affairs, headed by an assistant secretary and deputy assistant under secretaries for refugees and migration, as well as for prisoners of war missing in action, has indicated a major thrust on the part of American foreign policy.
In our own country, a similar kind of action has not ensued. Indeed, some members may recall that a little less than a year ago, in response to the new initiative of the Carter administration, I raised questions with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and subsequently with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) in committee, about the possibility of looking at our over-all economic patronage, our aid pro-

grams as they operate under Cl DA, and our trade package, particularly as expressed under the Export Development Corporation, to see whether actions in these areas were in line with our basic commitment to a fundamental observation of human rights. At that time both the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs gave a clear indication that they felt it would be difficult and publicly unacceptable to relate these two facets of Canadian public policy. Interestingly enough, the hundreds of letters I received from individuals and organizations across the country did not share the stumbling blocks or problems that seemed to exist in the mind of the government.
I think the government has begun to realize that this is a major issue. I wish to quote from a speech which the Secretary of State for External Affairs made in this House on December 19. It is an example of the change of attitude on the part of the minister and his department. He was speaking in a special external affairs debate we had at that time and was turning his attention particularly to South Africa. He said:
It is true, of course, that in other countries of the world there are clear violations of and disregard for human rights. There, too, Canada is expressing its concern, as are all members of this House. South Africa stands alone. It is the only country which as a basic part of its government structure-whether it is constitutional in the legal sense is beside the point-has a declared and unequivocal policy. It stands apart as a country which makes decisions affecting human beings on the basis of race and colour.
The minister went on to say that, as a result of the new concern the Canadian government had with respect to developments in South Africa, steps would be taken to reduce drastically the level of support or promotion of economic activity on the part of the government in South Africa. He announced the closing of a number of consulates, the withdrawal of trade missions, the removal of trade preference, and the general discouragement of economic activity on the part of Canada with South Africa. There can be no misunderstanding on this point. The government made a specific change in its policy with respect to the relationship of human rights and economic activity in the announcement of the minister on December 19.
In that connection it is significant that today, just before this debate began, a number of well known organizations held a public press conference at which they announced a Canadian campaign to stop bank loans to South Africa. I regard this as an important step in itself, because it signalled very clearly to the Canadian banks that a number of leading organizations will no longer accept the policies and programs followed by them in connection with their economic support for a government which, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs himself said, stands alone in its acceptance of a political structure which judges people and sets them apart on the basis of race.
The organizations which have taken part in this nation-wide campaign to stop bank loans to South Africa include the main Canadian churches, which are grouped together in a task force, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the National Union of Students, the Canadian University Service Overseas, OXFAM Canada and
March 21, 1978

the Canadian Council for International Co-operation. Ail these bodies have said that they, in their own way, in their own banking activities, will make it clear that they will no longer use certain banks, nor will they encourage their memberships to use them, until they make a definite move away from the present policy of providing economic support for South Africa.
I have read the reports in recent years of meetings between these groups and the banks in an effort in a patient way to obtain a clear account of the policy which is being followed. Those efforts were unsuccessful. Indeed one of the ridiculous anomalies of the present situation is that one can sometimes find out more about Canadian banking activities from reports of the United States Congress than from reports made available in this country either directly or through institutions which are under the jurisdiction of parliament to which public disclosure ought to be made.
I will just say a few words more with respect to the bill itself. Its purpose is to identify countries where the violation of human rights is occurring in a gross and continuing way to an extent clearly unacceptable even upon the basis of the most minimal standards. I realize there is an ethnocentric concern in some minds as to whether or not one group of people can make a decision with regard to a violation of human rights occurring among another group of people or in another country. Arguments can be raised as to distinctions between violations of human rights as opposed to the restriction of civil liberties and social opportunities.
I am calling attention this afternoon to the increasing number of governments and regimes, dictatorships on both the right and the left, which make a point, both as policy and daily practice, of violating the rights of their own citizens by arresting them without warning, imprisoning them without any recourse to legal protection, submitting them to torture, and executing them in many cases, to say nothing of the circumstances in which hundreds, sometimes thousands of people, disappear without trace. With many of these countries we have important economic relationships. They include Indonesia where, according to Amnesty International, there are between 50,000 and 100,000 political prisoners. They include Brazil, Argentina, and some of the Soviet countries with which we have tried to be reasonable at recent meetings in Belgrade, meetings which have quite obviously failed.
This legislative proposal is calling for some kind of responsibility in international affairs similar to that which we all accept with respect to our domestic affairs. In view of the wide interest and concern expressed on this subject I hope there will be an opportunity at the end of our discussion this afternoon to refer the subject matter to the Standing Committee on External Affairs where the bill could be scrutinized, and before which witnesses can be heard, so as to enable satisfactory recommendations to be made to the House for effective government action.


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, we have before us a bill the purpose of which would appear to be to prevent Canadian aid by grant or loan to countries which, in
External Aid
accordance with the views of certain international non-governmental organizations, have consistently violated human rights. It would also restrict trade with such countries.
As hon. members will appreciate, the problem of finding appropriate and effective methods of ensuring greater respect for human rights is one of the most delicate issues in foreign policy, one which we are constantly seeking to resolve. In this respect I believe that the government and the sponsors of this bill share certain common objectives, though we may not agree on the most effective means of attaining our goal.
In addressing this issue I believe it would help our understanding of the problem if I were first to say a few words about the Canadian government's general approach to date on the human rights issue as it relates to development assistance and to export financing assistance. As a general rule, we have not directly linked these matters with the internal policies of the governments in question, since it is intended by such programs that the people of the countries concerned should, in the long run, be the beneficiaries of the aid and assistance offered. At the same time, however, we have also found it appropriate to remind governments, by both bilateral and multilateral means, of our expectation with regard to the protection of human rights.
On the trade side, with respect to our dealings in peaceful goods, we have normally followed a business oriented approach which we have considered to be in line with normal commercial practices. We have, with very few exceptions, regarded the export of Canadian goods and services as the highest priority.
As for our development assistance, over 80 per cent in any event goes to the poorest countries and indeed to the poorest people within those countries; it is focused on basic human needs. We believe that to restrict the aid program on the basis of human rights criteria relative to the performance of governments would simply penalize the poor and would therefore be counter-productive in terms of the ultimate goals of the aid program.
Two recent exceptions, one relating to aid and the other to economic assistance, have been Uganda and South Africa. Although the nature of the "continuing and gross violations of human rights" in the two countries are quite different, the two situations shared one aspect in common-a near global consensus in the UN on the fact that the violations deserved condemnation, i.e. mass murder and torture in the case of Uganda, and apartheid in South Africa. Out of this emerged a further consensus on the relative importance of human rights to the issue and on the kind of action to take. This justified the Canadian government to act, leading to cessation of aid in the instance of Uganda and to the elimination of any Canadian government sponsored export assistance to South Africa.
In the case of Uganda, human rights violations were both evident and persistent, and in effect dictated the temporary end of any meaningful relationship with that country. It was also relevant, however, that the administration of an aid program had, in any case, been made impossible by the chaotic internal situation there, due in large part to continuing human rights violations. As for South Africa, the apartheid issue was

March 21, 1978
External Aid
given great weight but this was counterbalanced by other valid Canadian concerns, such as trade in peaceful goods. Thus, there has not been a total rupture of the bilateral relationship on the economic side, but government facilities and mechanisms are no longer used. Whether in either case the action we have taken will be persuasive in promoting greater respect for human rights is a question which we will have to examine over a certain time frame and in the light of the parallel actions of others, and even then the answer is likely to be inconclusive and highly subjective.
In the multilateral field Canada takes account of human rights considerations if these figure in a specific project proposal by one of the development banks. We have, however, resisted efforts by others to apply the performance of governments in human rights as a general yardstick for the acceptability of a given development project, since we consider it essential to preserve the abilities of these institutions to function effectively in the development field.
Those of us who live in countries of western traditions frequently assume that those standards of conduct and behaviour towards our fellow man which we traditionally favour are also perceived as having equal validity by other governments. But the perspective of other countries is, in fact, often different, partly because they may not be western or democratic in background or partly because their economic situations are vastly different from ours.
Thus, western democracies traditionally accord priority to civil and political rights, while Third World countries often place their emphasis on pressing economic needs. We are told regularly in international bodies that a majority of underdeveloped states are more concerned with alleviating starvation and promoting their development and, in so doing, attach a greater priority to the duties of citizens than to their rights.
In the absence of consensus and of effective enforcement machinery at the international level, therefore, we have been forced to rely on other methods, essentially political and diplomatic, to convey to other governments our concerns about human rights. Canada can use multilateral bodies such as the Commission on Human Rights to make known our attitude toward events in other countries. At such meetings we can vote on resolutions varying in tone and substance from mild requests for information to denunciations and condemnations. Multilateral bodies may impose sanctions dealing with aid or trade in specific types of goods or trade generally. Such sanctions may be legally binding, as are Security Council sanctions, or voluntary, as are resolutions of the General Assembly. States may, of course, impose sanctions unilaterally or jointly with other states by curtailing aid, ending trade relations or by going as far as suspending diplomatic relations.
We can also make direct representations on a bilateral basis. Such representations may range from expressions of concern through requests for redress of specific grievances to formal protests.

Canadians are justifiably indignant at flagrant abuses of the fundamental rights of the individual in countries such as Uganda, South Africa and in many other countries in eastern Europe, Latin America and elsewhere, and we have sought to express this concern in the manner we believe is most effective. Nevertheless, there are no firm and fixed rules for raising and discussing what are essentially the domestic concerns of other states. Some countries simply refuse categorically to permit any exchange of views.
When we approach the issue of raising human rights questions with other countries, we generally consider two criteria in deciding a course of action. The first is whether an action would be appropriate. The second is what action will likely be effective. Whether action, if taken, will be effective has to be subjected to balanced and careful examination.
When we have cordial relations with states, for example, low key, private discussions are demonstrably more likely to resolve outstanding individual difficulties. This, in turn, can establish an atmosphere in which it should be easier for us to seek to have resolved other problems of concern to Canadians. When relations are poor and progress on human rights issues is negligible, it may be necessary to make our case public, even though public pressure may as often contribute to a hardening of attitudes as to a meeting of minds. Whether a given course of action will be effective depends as well on our ultimate goals. If we seek to rectify isolated abuses or aberrations in a state's normal performance in the human rights field, the task is generally manageable. We are not, however, likely to be able to alter a firm policy or the fundamental basis of another state's society or political system, certainly neither easily nor quickly.
The intent of this bill, that of seeking to guarantee a positive commitment to traditional and fundamental human rights, is one to which this government wholeheartedly subscribes. It is one which we have consistently promoted in all international forums, most recently at the Commission on Human Rights which has just concluded its thirty-fourth session in Geneva.
Nevertheless, it is our belief that, if adopted, this bill would distort the aims and purposes of Canadian international development assistance. This bill would make the conduct of Canadian policy in the fields of development assistance and export financing hostage to only one factor, human rights, a factor which is largely beyond our control.
Canada's external relations are and must be governed by, and responsive to, many variables. They cannot and must not be conditioned by the type of rigid, essentially one track framework contemplated by this bill. When the totality of any of our bilateral relationships is considered, only in rare cases would human rights violations by themselves be sufficient reason to withdraw Canadian support. The judgment called for even in such cases is a difficult one, necessitating the weighing of all the various factors involved in our relationships and a determination of the relative importance of the human rights parameter.
Any hypothetical moral suasion or pressure provided by implementation of the provisions of this bill to improve the

human rights performance of a given country or countries would, in our view, be far outweighed by the following risks which seem to us inherent in the proposed approach it sets out.
First, sanctions against some governments may well lead not to greater democracy but less. Second, if the bill were to be strictly implemented, meaningful Canadian relations with a large number of countries would be effectively curtailed; as many as 60, based on the latest Amnesty International list-


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Where is the proof?


William Kenneth Robinson: I think the information is there.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Read it chapter and verse.


William Kenneth Robinson: I would be pleased to answer the hon. member's question after I complete my remarks.
If the bill were to be strictly implemented, meaningful Canadian relations with a large number of countries would be effectively curtailed-as many as 60, based on the latest Amnesty International list of countries practising torture, or even 100, based on the Freedom House list of "unfree societies".
Further, given the absence of a clear national constituency in favour of developing assistance, implementation of such a law, particularly during a period of recognized domestic economic difficulties, could provide both an excuse and the means to press for significant reductions in foreign aid.
This, in our view, would be counterproductive. Moreover, decreased aid flows would certainly not help us bring Canadian influence to bear through quiet diplomacy on violating states where our aid is a significant factor.
This bill would, moreover, place Canada in the untenable role of an international moral arbiter. As such, I believe that our ability to exercise the kind of leadership we took at the Conference on International Economic Co-operation would be seriously undermined, if not destroyed. If implemented, this bill would force Canada to inject political and controversial issues into international development assistance institutions which, to date, have been largely free of such matters so that they could respect the fundamental developmental thrust of their activities. This in turn could lead to a serious impairment of their ability to function effectively-particularly international financial institutions-thereby creating serious roadblocks to third world development and ultimately provoking confrontation.
Finally, and of more immediate relevance to our domestic economic interest, is the importance to Canada of trade, which this bill would also affect. Restrictions placed on export financing facilities because of human rights violations, regardless of other considerations, would adversely affect our export capabilities and could lead to the potential loss to the Canadian economy of substantial income. Canada's ability to compete internationally would be inhibited if exporters and investors were no longer confident of the kind of government support necessary to promote good business relationships in given countries.
External Aid
The bill would have other trade consequences as well. The provisions in clause 3(c), depending on the countries concerned, could conflict with existing Canadian trade obligations, multilaterally with respect to GATT and to British preferential tariff treatment or bilaterally.
Turning to somewhat more technical considerations, in our view the bill would also cause the following administrative or operational problems to our development programs. Its implementation could easily disrupt millions of dollars of aid projects currently under way, particularly in those cases where further appropriations are required for completion. The ability to make long term commitments and to undertake forward planning, which is crucial to effective aid programming, would be seriously undermined.
With specific reference to clause 3(a) of the bill, Canada cannot prevent the use of its contributions by an international financial institution in any given recipient country, even if our executive director were to vote against a project up for consideration. In respect of the IBRD, moreover, where we do not have a single national vote, our constituency situation could cause political problems should we be compelled to vote on the basis of Canadian perceptions of human rights considerations. While Canada has a majority position, and could insist on a given response, such action might not be acceptable to the other constituency members and might even cause the breakup of the constituency, and hence the effectiveness of our participation in the financial institution.
Finally, and most important, Canadian contributions to international financial institutions cannot, in any event, legally be made conditional on human rights considerations. To act in this manner would be in violation of the articles of agreement of the banks, which expressly forbid such politicization.
The administrative feasibility of the bill is also questionable, especially in relation to the definition of violations of human rights, gross or otherwise. While most of us would certainly agree that torture, murder and imprisonment without trial would violate human rights, the circumstances under which such actions might occur and the number of cases are surely also relevant. As I have already indicated, unfortunately there is no universally accepted definition of such matters. What constitutes a consistent pattern of gross violation? Must the evidence be first hand? Will the government in question be given an opportunity to rebut allegations of gross violation? On what tribunal could we confidently rely to sort out such problems and still protect our national sovereignty?
Even if it were possible to establish a clear, workable definition of what we as Canadians could consider to be relevant human rights violations, it seems to us that it would be administratively very complex to draw up and maintain a list of prohibited countries, and that the exercise could moreover become a vehicle for pursuing a variety of prejudice. The bill makes no provision for obtaining and evaluating the evidence on which the decision to denominate a country prohibited is based. Substantiated facts are not easy to come by. We

March 21, 1978
External Aid
would have to base our judgment on many non-governmental and non-Canadian sources for such information. Therefore, I would question also the provision in clause 5 of the bill which provides for obtaining the opinion of the International Commission of Jurists, which is only one of a number of reputable non-governmental organizations interested in human rights matters. Not only would the reliability of its information be open to question, since organizations such as the International Commission of Jurists frequently are not allowed to enter a country where violations are alleged to be taking place, but more significantly, to rely on such outside information would be to place important Canadian government policy matters in the hands of others rather than to accept responsibility at the level of our own government.
The bill gives rise to other questions too. Domestically, who would decide whether a given country is to be listed as a prohibited country? Would the government be prepared to designate a responsible agency? Would this be the governor in council, such as the cabinet, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson), or a group of ministers? What mechanism would be established so as to enable a country once designated to be removed from the prohibited list? What would be the criteria? For example, would a statement by the government indicating that it would try to improve its record suffice, or would there have to be some kind of tangible improvement? Would this improvement have to be maintained over a certain period of time before a country lost its prohibited classification? Would a simple change of government be grounds for removal from the prohibited list?
In conclusion, we consider that the proposed bill, despite the good intentions which it is intended to further, would be a radical and possibly even counterproductive departure from present Canadian policy. It would make human rights violations not merely one relevant factor in our aid and export finance policy, but an over-riding criterion which would determine action regardless of other important Canadian concerns and interests, as well as the interests of poor people in the countries concerned.
Human rights is an area in which the questions as to what can be most effectively done in particular cases are many and the answers are few. We shall continue to do our best to respond to particular cases in ways which we hope will express our concern for the fate of persons under unresponsive and repressive rule, but we do not consider Bill C-204 a useful mechanism to that end. Consequently, because of the reasons I have enumerated, the government is unable to support this proposed legislation.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) for bringing this very important bill before parliament in order for us to have an opportunity to discuss it. According to the procedures which have been followed in the past, unfortunately hon. members on the government side obviously will talk the bill out, so that it will never get to committee and form the basis of something which is very important in terms of our behaviour in the international community.

Having listened to the previous speaker outlining his objections to the bill, it seemed to me that is a famous cry over there: although they are very concerned about human and civil rights, they are not prepared to take tough actions which show leadership in this particular field.
I do not understand why hon. members can make such arguments as the ones we heard this afternoon. I have looked at the precedents set in terms of Rhodesia. This country embarked on an embargo respecting Rhodesia. Government agencies, such as the Export Development Corporation, were very proud to declare, approximately two years ago in a committee which I participated in, that they do not offer loans to companies operating in Rhodesia nor to the Rhodesian government. That is because the Rhodesian government is not recognized. The fact of the matter is that it was recognized that Rhodesia is beyond the ambit of Commonwealth nations. It is outside the Commonwealth. That precedent has been set. Canada participated with other countries in taking action against a country which has a rather questionable regime. Apart from the illegality of the regime, it is a regime which practises apartheid.
There have been other experiences in the western hemisphere. For example, there was the embargo against trade with Cuba. The United States placed an embargo on that island, and of course forbade trade between the United States and that country as well as any other country in Latin America which was a member of the Organization of American States. Indeed, the United States even tried to influence Canada with respect to participating in the embargo. Very often through their branch plants, the embargo law was observed.
I should like to deal specifically with South Africa. Often hon. members of the House have said that we cannot interfere by judging the political morality of a regime. I agree with that. I have no quarrel with that. It is a very broad area, and it is a very subjective one. It depends on the viewpoint of the person who is judging. That is very, very true. The regime in South Africa is based on the principle that the black man is not the equal of the white man, that in the creation of man, somehow or other God made the black man a lesser being than the white man. Obviously that is a philosophy which every single individual in the House rejects. That concept is false and inhuman. It is similar to the entire question of what happened in Germany prior to the Second World War. Of course, we all know the results of that. At that time we rejected the principle of a superior race, as we do now.
So what is the problem? Why cannot the problem of apartheid be identified? Indeed, it was the action of the leader of the Canadian government which resulted in South Africa being placed outside the Commonwealth. I am referring to the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). In 1961 he was the prime minister of Canada. At that time South Africa was placed outside the Commonwealth. South Africa still enjoys Commonwealth tariff preference. The Commonwealth agreement with respect to sugar is still in effect. We still give them a premium price for their sugar, and it seems to
March 21, 1978

me that that runs contrary to the very principle for which we put them out of the Commonwealth.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) made much of the fact that we were forbidding EDC to consider loans to South Africa. The Export Development Corporation has not made a loan to them in 15 years. On the other hand, we know that the Canadian consulate office in Johannesburg offers technical assistance through Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce officials to Canadian corporations wishing to do business in South Africa. That is speaking out of both sides of your mouth at the same time.
We are not asking any other country to do anything, but there are things that the government can do. We say that apartheid is despicable. If we feel apartheid is so despicable, we must take action to show how we feel.


Mr. Philbrook:: What about Guatemala?


John R. Rodriguez: The hon. member refers to Guatemala. 1 am glad he raised Guatemala, but I will deal with that later.


Frank A. Philbrook: Double standard.


John R. Rodriguez: What have we done by this de facto approbation of the South African regime? What we have is Canadian banks anxiously running in to lend money to South Africa. When concerned Canadians recognize the hypocrisy of the position we take internationally, they are told that the loans do not really help the South African government, that they are just a small wedge in the total South African scene. There are other banks in the world which lend money to South Africa. John Vorster is quoted as saying-and we have to take his word for it-that "each new investment in South Africa is another brick in the wall of our continued existence". The leader of the Souih African government is saying in effect that they need that type of investment from Canadian banks so that the regime in South Africa can be built up and can continue to exist.
We have been very phoney in our whole approach to South Africa. The philosophy on which the regime is built is one which Canadians despise. Our whole philosophy is contrary to the concept of apartheid, but we have a government which is prepared not only in a de facto way to prop up the regime, but also to help it along. For example, a double taxation agreement was established with South Africa with respect to companies that do business with that country so that they are not taxed in both places, they are only taxed in one place. If that does not perpetuate the South African regime, I do not know what it does.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs said today that we have to wait to see what other governments are doing. Why do we have to wait to see what other governments are doing? Do we not know what is right and just in the eyes of the international community?
External Aid
It did not take Sweden, West Germany and Great Britain long to recognize the proper thing to do with respect to investment in Chile. That is the other country to which I was going to turn. The Allende regime was legally and democratically elected in the country in Latin America where the history of democratic government was the longest. It was a legally elected government, and yet today two officials from IT and T are being charged with perjury. They perjured themselves in front of a Senate committee by denying that IT and T had worked to undermine the regime. It has now been found that IT and T did work to undermine the regime. We have had evidence from Amnesty International, church groups and from individuals who were incarcerated and tortured in Chile.
What is this government doing? We find that the Export Development Corporation is moving in with Noranda and Falconbridge and setting up business. One billion dollars have been invested to strip mine copper in Chile at a time when we in Canada could use the investment to create jobs. They are running in to make a quick buck on the misery of the Chilean people.
Those are two examples which every decent, self-respecting regime in the world can identify as regimes that defy and deny civil rights and, indeed, abuse humanity. This government through its agencies ought to withdraw any further support to those regimes. The government should show an example to the world and to the people of Canada and start putting its money where its mouth is.
I will stop there, Mr. Speaker, because I would like to see this bill go to committee and become law.


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, before I start I would like to know what time you intend to adjourn the private members' hour in view of the fact that it started at 5.10.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: There is nothing in our rules that permit us to sit beyond six o'clock.


Douglas Roche: Since it is two minutes to six, I will confine myself to one or two sentences. I do not want to talk this bill out; I would rather see it go to committee.
I commend the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) for having brought before us for the second time in two weeks a bill dealing with foreign aid. What the hon. member is asking us to do fundamentally is to shore up Canada's standards on human rights by taking more concrete action than we have hitherto. He wants this bill to go to a committee for study. If there is anyting that the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence needs to do, it is to make a serious study that would get to the heart of the issue.
I commend this bill to hon. members. Its time will come. Eventually the hon. member for Egmont will see his idea incorporated. It is not yet six o'clock.


Frank A. Philbrook: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) very sincerely for proposing this bill. Without a

March 21, 1978
Northern Pipeline
doubt, what we are discussing here today endorses the noblest of concepts, human dignity. Unfortunately, those of us who feel compelled to point out some difficulties-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Unfortunately, it is also six o'clock. The hour allotted for private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

[Stage Direction]


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-25, to establish the Northern Pipeline Agency, to facilitate the planning and construction of a pipeline for the transmission of natural gas from Alaska and Northern Canada and to give effect to an Agreement between Canada and the United States of America on principles applicable to such a pipeline and to amend certain acts in relation thereto, as reported (with amendments) from the Special Committee on a Northern Gas Pipeline.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members are aware that there are some 11 proposed motions to amend Bill C-25 at the report stage. I have given to hon. members present my suggestions as to how these motions may be grouped for discussion and voting and I will go over those. However, there has been some understanding about motions 8, 9 and 10 I will come to those in a moment. Motions 1 and 11, in the name of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie, I think should be grouped together for the purpose of debate with a vote on motion 1 disposing of motion 11. It seems to me that motion 11 will have no existence if motion No. 1 is not carried.
Motion 2, in the name of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie, appears to have two very serious difficulties and I will be hearing argument on it. The idea of a committee introduced into the minister's orbit of authority seems to be a totally new concept within the bill. Furthermore, unless the committee is already employed in some way or it is composed of unpaid volunteers, the motion would raise the element of new expenses which are not covered in the recommendation.
Motions 3, 5 and 7 I think would be discussed and voted upon separately if votes are required.
Motions 4 and 6 both deal with native claims and I think should be grouped together for discussion, although probably they should be voted on separately if votes are required.
My initial impression of motions 8, 9 and 10 is that they should be grouped together for discussion because they all deal with manpower and procurement conditions set out in Schedule III. I had thought that probably a vote on motion No. 8 might dispose of all three but I understand there is some feeling that motion No. 8 should be voted separately from a second vote which would take place on motions 9 and 10. That seems to me to be satisfactory. I do not have any strong feelings about the original suggestion. So we could take it as arranged that the three motions, Nos. 8, 9 and 10, would be discussed together and there would be a separate vote on motion 8 and a second vote on motions 9 and 10, if in fact votes are required.
If there are any other comments at this time I would be glad to have them, particularly in respect to motion 2.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the statement you have just made makes unnecessary any extended remarks at this point. You were good enough to supply us with a copy of what you intended to say, so we have had discussions about motions 8, 9 and 10. It was our desire that motions 8 and 9 be voted on separately, since motion No. 8 deals with Canadian labour and motion No. 9 deals with Canadian material. However, Your Honour has accepted that point so we are at one in that respect.
This means that in so far as the lineup you have given to us is concerned, the only question we still raise has to do with motion No. 2. My hon. friend the member for Sault Ste. Marie feels that it does not involve the expenditure of any new money. At some point, whenever Your Honour directs, he would like to have the opportunity to argue in favour of its admissibility. With that one request we accept the proposal you have placed before us.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If there are no other comments, my preference would be to take that argument now so that the whole House would have the benefit of knowing whether they are dealing with or without motion No. 2.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, motion 2, standing in my name, calls for the establishment of a committee to review the bids for goods and services from Canadian sources for the Alcan pipeline to ensure that there is no price fixing. We felt that this amendment was necessary in light of other amendments we have moved which would guarantee Canadian content. The purpose of this amendment was to prevent any abuse of that guarantee provision as it relates to prices.
I would argue that the committee proposed in the amendment would not constitute any expenditure of public funds. If Your Honour will look at clause 9 of the bill on page 6 you will notice that clause 9 says "The Minister may". It then lists a number of duties and powers for the minister. Clause 9(d),

March 21, 1978

which motion 2 seeks to amend, states in the bill that the minister may:
oversee and survey all aspects of the planning and construction of, and procurement for, the pipeline;-
We know, of course, the minister alone will not be overseeing these various aspects. He would have assisting him a committee made up of departmental officials seconded from the department of energy or any other government department, composed of people who are already on staff. Therefore, it would not require additional funds to hire them. That is the context in which we have used the word "committee"; it is a group of civil servants to assist the minister to ensure that there will be no price fixing in the bids submitted. In that sense I do not see that there would be any necessity for extra expenditure of funds. This would not be a parliamentary committee but merely an administrative committee to advise the minister, made up of people who are already on staff.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon is rising on a procedural point?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the member for Sault Ste. Marie did not attend any of the meetings of the special committee set up to study this bill. It is also unfortunate the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands is not here tonight, though I am sure he is engaged in other serious business elsewhere. He would have been able to explain to the House that the amendment proposed in motion No. 2 has been covered by an undertaking given by the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council in the committee to amend Standing Order 65(1) so as to set up the very kind of committee of which he speaks and for which he seeks an amendment. It would be a continuation of the special committee set up to examine the bill. The minister's undertaking in the committee was in these words:
That Standing Order 65(1) be amended by adding immediately after substec-tion (s), the following: "(t)-
This would set up a special standing committee on northern pipelines to accomplish the very objectives contained in motion No. 2.
-On Northern Pipelines, to consist of not more than 15 members, to which shall stand permanently referred all reports, orders, agreements, regulations, directions and approvals mentioned in sections 12, 13, 14, 15 and 22 of the Northern Pipeline Act; provided that the said committee shall report quarterly thereon in every session."
Provided that this subsection shall be deleted from the Standing Orders on the day on which the Northern Pipeline Agency ceases to exist.
That is not the final wording. The Deputy Prime Minister is still considering our suggestion with regard to reporting on a quarterly basis or once every four months. We are very close to agreement on that score. That is the kind of procedure that would avoid the pitfalls into which the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie falls in suggesting an amendment along the lines that he has in motion No. 2 which offends the provisions with regard to public expenditures.
Northern Pipeline
I say to the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie that his motion is unnecessary. We have a commitment from the government and an undertaking from the minister that that committee will be set up to ensure that the very admirable intent spelled out in the international agreement between the two countries is adhered to with regard to Canadian labour, goods and materials-Canadian content in general. That and other very important aspects will be monitored by that committee which the minister and the government have undertaken to set up.


Reginald Cyril Symes: After the fact.


Erik Nielsen: I hear the interjection of the hon. member. It will not be after the fact. It will be on a continuing basis in the committee.
This is a unique experience in the history of this House as long as I have been here. A standing committee is being set up to monitor a piece of legislation about which there is understandably deep concern with regard to the achievement of the terms of the international agreement, particularly those with regard to Canadian content.
We are satisfied with the minister's undertaking, satisfied with the government's commitment and satisfied that that committee will be able to accomplish the purpose of ensuring that the Canadian content provisions will be adhered to.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I first wish to note that the hon. member for Yukon made mention of the fact that the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie had not been at any meetings of the special committee. That is quite correct. The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie was not a member of that committee. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands was our representative on that committee throughout its sessions. He happens to be away now and his place is being taken at this stage of the debate by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie. Nothing much turns on it, but I thought it was an unnecessary reference by the hon. member for Yukon.
As to his point about the commitment made by the Deputy Prime Minister to introduce an amendment to the Standing Orders, I suggest that does not have anything to do with the procedural admissibility of the amendment in motion No. 2. I also want to point out that they are two different concepts altogether, namely the establishing of a standing committee of the House of Commons to monitor what goes on with regard to the northern gas pipeline and an internal departmental committee that checks on purchases to make sure there is no price fixing and so on.
It is not good enough for the hon. member for Yukon to say that the committee which the Deputy Prime Minister will ask the House to set up can do that job. We do not know when parliament will be sitting. We do not know when that committee will be able to do its job. There are bound to be times when the government will be making purchases or letting contracts when parliament is not even here or when the committee is not sitting.

March 21, 1978
Northern Pipeline
What we feel is necessary is a committee inside of the department or inside of the government service to check on purchases and contracts before they are entered into, to make sure there is no price fixing or violations of the agreement between Canada and the United States. 1 submit they are two different things. The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie is perfectly aware of the commitment made by the Deputy Prime Minister. He hopes in this debate that the commitment made in the committee will be given to parliament and that we can be sure we will have that committee.
I heard the hon. member for Yukon saying there is almost an agreement as to what the wording will be. We want that commitment made on the floor of the House of Commons and we want that commitment kept. However, knowing full well that we may get that committee, it does not take the place of this before the fact continuing committee inside the department to deal with this matter.
I submit the argument that another committee is being promised does not touch the question of the procedural admissibility of the motion set out as No. 2. The point Your Honour raised is the question that has to be faced. Does it involve the expenditure of money? As my friend from Sault Ste. Marie pointed out, we do not envisage an outside committee that will cost extra money, but rather a committee within the public service. On that ground, the motion ought to be allowed as procedurally admissible.


Mr. Speaker:: On the procedural point, I do not think there is any question about the motivation and the importance of the subject that is dealt with in the particular amendment. However, I am forced to the conclusion that the motion fails on procedural grounds either one way or the other.
The argument is that the committee that is envisaged here, as has been described by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie, at least in his mind, a committee only of officials of the minister. If that is so, surely that is a discretion that the minister enjoys without the necessity of having to give it to him in a statute. If it is in fact simply the discretion in the minister who is given by this section the authority to preside over all of these elements that are contained in here, all of which are very important, surely the minister possesses the authority to delegate that to officials on his own staff without having to have it put in the statute, in which case it becomes superfluous.
On the other hand, if it is more than that, if it is authority for the minister to set up some committee outside of his own staff or outside of his own department, it becomes first of all a new concept and in any case would require some expenses. Because if the people are not already on his staff, they have to be paid.
On balance, I have to conclude that this amendment imports into the statute a concept that was not there originally. It seems to raise a very serious problem about the financial recommendation provisions. Despite the argument that has been put forward here this evening, I have to set it aside on those procedural grounds. Therefore, we would begin by call-

ing motion No. 1 which would be grouped for discussion with motion No. 11.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I have an objection to make concerning the procedure to follow in the case of amendment No. 7. I wonder if it would be preferable to make this objection now or when you call motion No. 7? I can raise my objection now if you wish.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion, it would be preferable to listen immediately to the objection of the hon. member.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that if this motion is to be acceptable, it would need the royal recommendation for the following reasons: The legislation provides for the creation of an agency called the Northern Pipeline Agency. Moreover, the legislation provides that the cost of this agency will be fully payable by the company. However, amendment No. 7 aims at limiting reimbursement of this cost by the company to one per cent, as specifically stated in the motion, that is one per cent of the actual construction costs of the pipeline.
Consequently, the amendment aims at limiting reimbursement by the company of the administration cost of the pipeline. If this cost exceeds one per cent, it will have to be paid by the government or the taxpayers. There has not been any royal recommendation to ask the state to shoulder such an expense.
The nature of our objection, Mr. Speaker, concerns simply the fact that it can happen that the limit set out in the suggested amendment be lower than the actual administration cost of the pipeline, in which case the taxpayers will have to pay the difference and we do not have the necessary royal recommendation. This is the nature of my objection.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member is arguing is a hypothesis. As he knows, there is a similar provision in the United States legislation setting out a formula which places a cap on the expenditures of the government with respect to costs which can be passed on to the builder companies.
What the hon. member is arguing is that the one per cent cost cap might be exceeded. 1 would point out it is always open to the government or to any member to amend that motion so as to increase the one per cent if the government could show that costs are going to be exceeded. The cost at one per cent would amount to $40 million over the life of the international agreement. If the case could be proven by debate on the motion that the cost could be kept well below that figure-and we think we can make such a case-then there would be no cost to the Canadian taxpayer, so it would not offend the provisions of our practice with respect to obtaining a Governor General's warrant. So this is open to amendment. For this
March 21, 1978

reason I believe the argument put forward by the hon. member is premature.
The point raised by the parliamentary secretary is a good one. It is one to which we gave consideration prior to grouping the amendments, I can see there is a possibility in certain circumstances that since this section provides for the collection of money, and if a limit were to be imposed which is not now contemplated in the recommendation, it could have the effect of reducing by that amount the revenue to be gained in that way, thereby increasing the charge on the taxpayer. On balance I felt that to remove this element from the argument solely on procedural grounds would be reaching too far, because it seems to me the words here are capable of several other interpretations. I thought it more appropriate to allow this proposed amendment to go to debate to see whether the arguments developed proved that there is, in fact, a risk of a further drain on the treasury, in which case an amended Royal Recommendation might be needed.
It seemed to me that where we are dealing with a section in a statute which sets out fees in certain circumstances, or payment by private companies or applicants in certain circumstances, it would be very strict if I were to eliminate an amendment which sought to place control or upper limit upon those fees. While it may be necessary as the debate develops to take such a position, I did not think I ought to do it ahead of time.
I am mindful of the point raised by the hon. member but at the moment I think I ought not to accept it unless, during the course of the debate, I see some indication as to the operation of the section which expands upon the point which the parliamentary secretary has made.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a point of order before we proceed with the motion before us. It relates to certain commitments made by the Deputy Prime Minister before a committee of the House. I have had some with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and I think it would be beneficial if certain of those commitments which relate to certain documents were tabled in the House and an explanation given with regard to the commitment in respect of Standing Order 65.
I refer hon. members to the record of the Special Committee on a Northern Gas Pipeline, issue No. 11 for March 15, where the Deputy Prime Minister, as reported at page 11:17 and 11:18 gave the committee the assurance that, before we proceed with later debate on this bill, he would provide for members of the House a draft agreement between the Government of Canada and Foothills Pipeline Company on the Dempster link, as it is called, and also the draft agreement on natural gas throughput. Perhaps it would facilitate our consideration of the bill if those two documents were tabled.
In addition, I wonder whether we might have on record in this House the government's commitment to amend Standing Order 65-the exact nature of the amendment the government is willing to propose in line with its undertaking in committee.
Northern Pipeline


James Hugh Faulkner: I rise on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie, Mr. Speaker. Dealing with the second item, namely the commitment of the Deputy Prime Minister to propose an amendment to standing orders to provide for the northern pipeline committee to continue its work after this bill goes through and in the course of the construction, I reiterate that commitment now at the report stage. There is, I believe, circulating around the chamber tonight a proposed revised form of the Standing Order, but I am not sure we are agreed on all its aspects. So rather than read that proposal into the record I would suggest we carry on with the discussion this evening; hopefully, the Deputy Prime Minister will be back tomorrow and he might then wish to bring the matter to a head in discussion with representatives from all parties. I am ready to provide hon. members with copies of the proposed Standing Order should they be required, and talks can proceed with regard to any areas where there may be dispute.
As for the draft copy of the Dempster link agreement and the natural gas throughput agreement, I have copies here both in English and in French and I will be pleased to table them if consent to do so is forthcoming, or to circulate them, whichever is the wish of hon. members.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the minister have leave of the House to table those documents at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make one point on the subject of the commitment of the minister. That commitment is spelled out in detail in the minutes of the special committee set up to study the pipeline. Very uniquely in my experience in this House, that committee went through all the clauses of this bill without a single vote being taken on any of the proposals of the opposition as they were advanced. They were found to be acceptable by the government, and significant progress was made.
However, the only area which has yet to be clarified-and which I do not think is in dispute-is the frequency with which the special committee to be set up under the Standing Orders to review and to monitor will report to the House. Our suggestion has been a quarterly review, but we are flexible. It could be once every four months, but we do not think it should be any less frequent than that.
I think we must support the minister and urge the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie and his party to leave that area open. It is not urgent to pass that amendment to the Standing Orders at this stage and, indeed, it can be done after we return from the Easter recess. It certainly cannot be passed before the bill is passed. If we had that flexibility-in view of the minister's illness, which is the reason for his absence from this debate-I think we would be far better off than we would be if we dealt with that matter today.

March 21, 1978
Northern Pipeline


Reginald Cyril Symes: That Bill C-25, to establish the Northern Pipeline Agency, to facilitate the planning and construction of a pipeline for the transmission of natural gas from Alaska and Northern Canada and to give effect to an Agreement between Canada and the United States of America on principles applicable to such a pipeline and to amend certain Acts in relation thereto, be amended in Clause 3 by:
(a)	deleting the word "and" in line 29 at page 3
(b)	striking out line 32 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor: "industrial benefits by guaranteeing the highest"
(c)	striking out lines 35 to 38 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor: "tion of, and procurement for, the pipeline; and
(g) to facilitate the efficient and expeditious planning and construction of the
pipeline while at the same time ensuring that federal government financial
guarantees of any kind will not be required in order to complete the project.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion No. 1 is grouped for discussion and voting with motion No. 11.


Reginald Cyril Symes: That Bill C-25, to establish the Northern Pipeline Agency, to facilitate the planning and construction of a pipeline for the transmission of natural gas from Alaska and Northern Canada and to give effect to an Agreement between Canada and the United States of America on principles applicable to such a pipeline and to amend certain Acts in relation thereto, be amended in Schedule III at page 52, by striking out line 2 of paragraph 12(a) and substituting the following therefor:
"relating to the financing of the pipeline consistent with paragraph 3(g) and sub-clause 21(2) of this Act and such".
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-25, regarding the northern pipeline, or the Alcan pipeline as it is commonly called, is one of the most important bills to come before this House in recent times because it incorporates legislation to provide for one of the largest construction undertakings since the St. Lawrence Seaway. This vast energy pipeline will be designed to transport gas from Alaska through Canada to southern United States markets.
The New Democratic Party are in favour of the Alcan pipeline, but we are not in favour of the bill before us because we feel there are a number of deficiencies in it with regard to guaranteeing maximum Canadian content in terms of steel for the pipeline and in terms of jobs, whether they be in the steel industry or in the construction industry. We are also concerned that we do not have any guarantee or provision in the legislation to ensure that, if the cost of this pipeline exceeds original estimates and the pipeline companies run into financial difficulties, they will not end up coming to the government of Canada, and hence to the taxpayers of Canada, for supplementary funding out of the public purse.
That is why I moved motion No. 1, which would do two things. It would provide stronger wording in the legislation to ensure that we get maximum Canadian content in this vast pipeline, and also that we do not end up becoming involved in some kind of government backstopping or financial guarantees in case there are cost overruns.
As we were told when we heard from the applicant, Foothills, this great pipeline will cost some $10 billion. That is the original estimate. Some $4 billion to $6 billion of that will be spent on the Canadian section. We were told by the Deputy

Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) that this pipeline would generate 100,000 man-years of employment in Canada. We applaud that kind of job creation. Because of the way the Liberal government has mismanaged our economy, because there are more than one million Canadians officially unemployed and because real unemployment is running at about 1.5 million, any project we can undertake which will employ steel workers and construction workers and which will benefit depressed regions is welcome.
One would think, given the disastrous economic situation in Canada, that any responsible government would try to ensure that we did not get the optimum level of Canadian content but rather the maximum level, and that we did not get about 60 per cent of the contracts but 90 per cent or 98 per cent. In return for giving the United States the right of way, this land bridge across Canada, to move American gas to American markets-because that is essentially what this project will be, at least in its beginning stages-surely it should not be unreasonable for Canada to expect in return something besides token job creation or token steel contracts.
We should be demanding maximum Canadian content in the pipeline, but nowhere in the legislation do we see any attempt to make ironclad provisions for maximum Canadian content and Canadian job creation. We have to rely on the assurances of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that we will get 90 per cent Candian content and 100,000 man-years of employment.
Why are we in this party somewhat suspicious of that verbal guarantee?


Mr. Blackburn:: We have good grounds.


Reginald Cyril Symes: My colleague, the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn), says we have good grounds, because when we look at the past record of negotiations between the Liberal government of Canada and the government of the United States, we find that usually we come out holding the short end of the stick. Let us face the fact that Americans are some of the best negotiators. The United States is a very powerful country. It has much leverage which it can bring to bear whenever it enters into bilateral negotiations.
One has only to think of the past experiences of the Canadian government in such negotiations. I think, for example, of the Columbia River Treaty and the Canada-U.S. auto pact. Anyone who has examined those two international trade treaties in detail has come to the conclusion that, although we were promised at the time that these agreements were going to create great benefits for Canada, in reality it turned out somewhat differently. We are already facing huge deficits in the auto pact agreement and we are losing jobs to U.S. auto producers.
Surely in light of some of this bad experience when we had our fingers burned in the past, we should be wary of this government's assurances that everything will be all right, that two or three years down the road when the pipeline actually
March 21, 1978

gets under construction and the bids have been made we will indeed have 90 per cent or more of the content and the kind of job creation the minister promised. All we have are those verbal assurances of the minister and the wording that is before us in the legislation.
When we look at the wording in the legislation we see that we do not get absolute and clear guarantees. The legislation prefers to use such words as, and I look at clause 3(f), "to advance national economic and energy interests and to maximize related industrial benefits by ensuring the highest possible degree of Canadian participation". It does not use the words "guaranteeing the highest", it uses the words "ensuring the highest". Anyone who has any kind of elementary education knows the difference between those two words.
That is why we have moved the amendment to replace the word "ensure" with the word "guarantee". We feel this wording gives much more direction to the government and makes it much more difficult for the government to get off the hook and begin to explain away, somewhere down the road, why we are not getting 90 per cent content but only 60 per cent or 70 per cent.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, when you look at the official announcements of both governments after the treaty was negotiated concerning this pipeline, we remember how the Canadian officials told us that this was the greatest coup Canadian negotiators had made in a long time; we have this great project and we are going to receive tremendous benefits. However, at the same time Dr. Schlesinger, the United States energy minister, was saying that they in the United States had worked out one of the best deals ever. They had arranged the pipeline and the treaty in such a way that they would not get undue hindrance from Canada, and they were also confident they would win a great many of the contracts for the building of the pipeline.
Indeed, when one looks at the preparations American industry is now making, at advertisements in some of the financial journals and interdepartmental reports in the United States, and when we look at the activities of many U.S. pipeline companies, one gets the horrible fear that they believe they have most of the contracts sewn up already. I think, for example, of pipeline contractors who have been able to pick up, at bargain basement prices, the pipeline construction material used for building the Alaska oil pipeline, and how these U.S. contractors now have that equipment in place and are ready to bid on various construction contracts, at great advantage to any Canadian company which has to start buying new machinery at higher prices. We see these things taking place already, and that, coupled with our knowledge of past mistakes, makes us believe we must have some very strong language and very strong clauses in this bill if we are to end up with the majority of the benefits from this great pipeline undertaking.
I know the Deputy Prime Minister is a man of integrity, and when he says we are going to get 90 per cent of the contracts and 100,000 man-years of employment I am sure he quite genuinely believes that is so. I do not argue with that, and we
Northern Pipeline
are expected to take him at his word. However, in my experience here in the House of Commons one politician's word has never been as strong or as binding as an act of parliament, binding on this minister, this government, future ministers and future governments in respect of a certain course of action. Politicians come and go and promises are forgotten, but legislation remains and is to be obeyed. This is why we say the bill as it presently stands is a weak bill, and it is for this reason that we want to move these amendments and hope the House will support us.
We have come across some studies by the federal government which cause us to worry that we are, indeed, going to get 90 per cent of the contracts. It is interesting to note that when this pipeline was first proposed we were told by officials both of Foothills and the National Energy Board that if we were to get the 100,000 man-years of employment, or that kind of maximum job creation, it would mean we were going to get 98 per cent of the content of this pipeline.
We started off with the figure of 98 per cent, and that figure dropped to 90 per cent. That is the figure the Deputy Prime Minister has been using. We do not now hear the 98 per cent figure in respect of Canadian content that we heard when there was competition between this bid and the Mackenzie Valley pipeline bid. This makes us worry a bit.
We then came across an internal study commissioned by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion which stated that unless there were guarantees in the legislation for Canadian content a more realistic projection for Canadian content was not 90 per cent but only 67 per cent. That frightens us. A Canadian government department which has done an analysis taking all factors into consideration has stated in black and white that, unless we have guarantees in the legislation, the more realistic Canadian content figure is only 67 per cent. When you drop down to 67 per cent in content you drop down the number of man-years of employment created. Indeed, unless we get the Dempster lateral or spur line built we will not have the 100,000 man-years of employment but something more like 68,000 man-years. If we drop down to 67 per cent Canadian content we lose some 32,000 man-years of employment, or even more, and we lose all kinds of contracts for the steel industry of Canada.
I come from a community which has Canada's third largest steel producer, Algoma Steel. I know the workers of Algoma will benefit indirectly from the pipeline. They will not be making the pipe at Sault Ste. Marie but they will be providing some of the plate for Stelco, and they will also be picking up some of the slack in other areas of the steel industry. It seems to me that for the sake of the 40,000 steel workers across Canada and the tens of thousands of other workers who depend on the health of the Canadian steel industry, it is not unreasonable that we have some kind of guarantees in this legislation as far as content is concerned.
That is one additional reason for motion No. 1, to put the word "guarantee", in relation to the highest Canadian content, into this legislation. We can then hold the Deputy Prime

March 21, 1978
Northern Pipeline
Minister to his promise of 90 per cent or more Canadian content.
Many members of the House will say it is not necessary to have that kind of guarantee in the legislation because the pipe size gives the Canadian industry a great competitive advantage. They will say the pipe size is 56-inch diameter, which we are able to produce and in respect of which other countries will have difficulties. I know that the heads of Stelco and Ipsco have said: "Yes, we are confident we can produce and fulfill the contracts". I do not question that at all. We have a very efficient and competitive steel industry. As I will explain in later motions, we fear there will be unfair foreign competition which will undermine the ability of Canadian steel producers to bid competitively on the world market. Indeed, we may see the Japanese, West Germans or Americans, through all types of hidden subsidies, being able to offer lower bids than Canadian companies.
Also perhaps the government will be powerless to stop those bids without specific guarantees in the legislation before us. Certainly the presidents of Stelco and other steel companies are correct; they will receive a lot of the contracts. But "a lot" is a very nebulous phrase sometimes. That is why we say that we must not just look for the optimum, that we must look for the maximum. The maximum must be spelled out, as the Deputy Prime Minister has done, in terms of 90 per cent Canadian content.
The other amendment before us in motion No. 1 is to add a subclause to clause 3 to ensure that we do not run into the position somewhere down the road of requiring the federal government to provide financial backstopping for the company. What do I mean by that? That is a system whereby the company comes to the federal government and says: "Well, we have got the pipeline two-thirds built and we are running into difficulty raising the capital necessary to continue the construction of the line. Therefore, we would like some type of government backstopping or standing behind us in the money markets to ensure that we can raise the extra capital".
This is a very dangerous situation. When pipelines are built, experience indicates that the original estimates have a habit of escalating very rapidly. One has to think only of the Montreal Olympics and what the original costs were. The mayor of Montreal said that the Olympics can no more have a deficit than a man can have a baby. Yet we have ended up with the federal government providing all kinds of indirect subsidies and financial assistance in order to bail the Olympics out of the huge deficit it got into.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie now is dealing with clause 3, As I understand it, that clause is not grouped with motions 1 and 11. Surely the hon. member should stick to motions 1 and 11 and not deal with his other amendments until they come up in proper order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Yukon raises a good point of order.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, with all respect, motion No. 1, which I have moved and am now discussing, has two aspects. One deals with guaranteeing Canadian content and a new subclause (g). Perhaps I should read that for the benefit of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). It reads as follows:
to facilitate the efficient and expeditious planning and construction of the pipeline while at the same time ensuring that federal government financial guarantees of any kind will not be required in order to complete the project.
I am now addressing myself to the second part of my motion. I believe that is entirely in order.


Erik Nielsen: I apologize. The hon. member is entirely correct.


Reginald Cyril Symes: I thank the hon. member. I was saying that we must be careful that we do not get into the trap of having public money bailing out the private pipeline company in the end. It is not Canadian consumers who will receive the Alaska gas; it is gas moving to the United States. There is some question that we will ever build the Dempster spur line to the Mackenzie Valley gas fields in light of the increased finds of natural gas in southern Alberta. Of course, this gas is approximately one-third the price of Arctic gas. Thus, the argument cannot be used that it is all right for public money to provide some financial backstopping to the company because we will receive some of this gas. That is not a guaranteed situation. Certainly it is untrue in the early years of the pipeline.
When the Alaska oil pipeline was completed, the original estimates had doubled or had more than doubled. We must look at the safeguard that the president of the United States ensured in legislation placed before Congress on this very matter. The Americans have a provision in their legislation relating to the pipeline to the effect that the government of the United States will not provide financial backstopping for the company in the future. In light of their Alaska oil pipeline experience, Americans are wise enough to have that kind of provision written into their legislation.
Nowhere in the bill before us do we see a similar provision. There is no commitment on the part of the government that it will not bail the company out if it runs into financial difficulties down the road. If the Americans found it wise in light of past experience to have such a clause in their legislation, I cannot fathom why our government has not provided such a clause to ensure that we do not fall into the trap of having to use public funds to bail the company out if the original cost estimates are exceeded.
These are the reasons for putting forward motion No. 1. I think it is important that the wording be strengthened to have the type of provision which guarantees the highest possible amount of Canadian content and Canadian job creation. We do not use wishy-washy words; we have stated it in black and white. We hold this government to that commitment by an act of parliament.
March 21, 1978

The second aspect of motion No. 1 is an inclusion in the legislation so that the government is bound by this provision that we do not get into financial guarantees; and if we ever come across that situation in the future, it will not be an executive decision by the government to commit public funds but the government will have to return to the House of Commons to get an amendment to the act. As responsible members of parliament, and as protectors of the public purse, that is something we should expect of this extravagant government across the way.
I commend to the House those two aspects of motion No. 1. Surely hon. members of the Conservative party, who are worried about the government's record in terms of past treaties, job creation and government expenditure, would support this motion, which provides some kind of legislative guarantee that the government will own up to its promises.


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, before dealing with motion No. 1 at report stage, perhaps I can indicate to all hon. members that the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), who has been responsible for piloting this bill on the government side from the beginning of negotiations, will be feeling stronger tomorrow and will take his place as the minister responsible for the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Hugh Faulkner: I know hon. members opposite are glad to see me in the House and will bear with me during this part of the proceedings; but at the same time I am sure they will be glad to see the Deputy Prime Minister back tomorrow.


An hon. Member:: You are one of the best ministers in the cabinet.


James Hugh Faulkner: That is right. The proposal put forward by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) is really a proposal in parts. The first amendment proposes changing the words "ensuring the highest possible degree of participation" to "guaranteeing the highest possible degree of participation". In a second and different substantive part of the same motion, he deals with the question of whether there should be an explicit exclusion of federal government financial guarantees. I will attempt to deal with both of them briefly.
At the committee stage-and I am sure the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) will confirm this when he speaks shortly after I-these issues were dealt with extensively. They were canvassed thoroughly, and some of the arguments that were raised at the committee stage were ignored by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie. In proposing the first part of his motion, which deals with guaranteeing the highest possible degree of Canadian participation, he chose to ignore the fact that it would be in conflict with the generally competitive basis provision of the Canada-U.S. agreement. He also chose to ignore the point that was raised in committee that a provision
Northern Pipeline
of this kind would be in contravention of Canada's obligations under GATT.
Leaving aside those two rather important objections to accepting this particular proposal at the committee hearing, there was no request from the companies for such a provision. They seemed to have a great deal more confidence in their abilities to meet the target of Canadian content than does the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie or, indeed, the New Democratic Party.
The companies have been quite explicit that they do not need the guarantees. They do not want this legislative monopoly, and, in fact, they are arguing against it. What they want is to be able to compete on fair, competitive terms, and they can do it. They do not accept the notion that because they are Canadian, somehow they cannot compete with the Americans, or that somehow there is going to be an insidious conspiracy of unfair competition that is going to render them "out of court". There are other ways of dealing with unfair competition, and it should be dealt with directly. So, Mr. Speaker, I find it unnecessary at the report stage to recanvass all the ground that was gone over exhaustively in the committee. The fact is that the companies do not want it. They are opposed to it. They do not think it is necessary, and, furthermore, it creates the additional problems which I have just mentioned.
The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie went on to provide a fairly personal account of deals struck by governments in the past and the toughness of American negotiators. I think it is fair to say, without getting into a long historical argument with the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie, that the deal which has been struck is a good deal. I am anxious to see the bill pass, and I do not want to create unnecessary obstacles to its passage.
The hon. member has indicated to us that he would like to see the bill pass. He represents a constituency which produces some steel. He knows the bill's passage is going to create employment. He probably knows in his heart of hearts that he does not need these legislative guarantees, these legislative monopolies, to create opportunities for his people and other people in Hamilton and Saskatchewan, particularly in Saskatchewan where there are some colleagues of his. The fact remains that the bill would create employment; it would create job opportunities for Canadians in many parts of this country. We should not try to compromise this bill now with amendments of this kind, particularly since the principal players are not requesting it. By any standard of analysis, when you look at the ability of Canadian companies to compete, they are able to do so.
Let me turn to the second part of the motion which is an additional clause 3(g). Very simply, what it provides is that there should be no federal government financial guarantees of any kind. First of all, there has been no request for federal financial guarantees from any corner. The witnesses who appeared before the committee said they are not asking for federal financial guarantees. In fact, the pipeline company even went further than that and said that if it had to have federal guarantees, it would get out. I am not sure that

March 21, 1978
Northern Pipeline
wording is entirely accurate. The other point, which I think is more important, is that if a federal financial guarantee was ever required, it would come before parliament in the normal course of business.
For both those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is necessary to include particularly in the second part of the amendment, the words "guaranteeing the highest" as proposed. I recommend that the Elouse reject motion No. 1.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) had taken the trouble to look in the Oxford dictionary for the definitions of "ensure" and "guarantee", he would agree that the terms are synonymous. According to Oxford, "ensure" means "to make certain, to secure something to or for a person". "Guarantee" in the Oxford dictionary means exactly the same thing. So the motion with respect to changing the word "ensuring" in subclause (f) of clause 3 is mere grandstanding, as far as I am concerned.
The hon. member knows that his party is in a difficult position because they know the benefits of this pipeline to the west, apart of which enjoys, for the moment at least, a government of their own political stripe. It would have assisted greatly in the debate if the hon. member had been in attendance at the committee meetings. The companies involved in the building of this line have no fears whatsoever that the Canadian steel industry and Canadian labour will not be employed to the fullest possible extent. Indeed, they know that Canadian labour organizations want this bill, and they do not want it cluttered up or obstructed, which appears to be the course of the NDP at the moment.
The Canadian steel industry has expressed full confidence not only in being able to supply the steel for the Canadian section, but also in bidding successfully on the American portion of the line. I think that disposes of the grandstanding approach to changing the word "ensure" to "guarantee". It is a very feeble attempt at gaining media attention for something that is impractical.
The minister has mentioned the two reasons that this amendment is impractical, and it sharpens the differences between the position taken by the NDP and our own position. The NDP wants guarantees written into the legislation with respect to the Canadian provisions of the international agreement. Canadian labour does not want that. The Canadian steel industry does not want that. The Canadian pipe industry does not want that. Operating companies do not want that. So why is there all this grandstanding on the part of the NDP?
It has been our intention from the outset to assist the passage of this bill, but in doing so to ensure the legislation would be improved so as to guarantee that the best interests of Canadians would be served. In doing that, we gave very close scrutiny to the section of the bill dealing with Canadian content.
When the bill was first introduced it was immediately apparent that there were several major omissions and that amendments would be required to rectify defects. The committee that was set up specifically to focus on an examination of the bill did an excellent job, in my view. It also did a unique job because this is the first time that a bill has passed through committee in terms of a negotiating process which resulted in no votes on clauses. This was because we got the most from our suggested amendments that we could possibly get from the government.
By far the most important omission was the absence of any guarantee to ensure the very admirable intention spelled out in the Canada-U.S. international agreement as to Canadian content-that is, the use of Canadian labour, materials and products. We, as much as they, wanted guarantees that these intentions would be carried out. The NDP took the unworkable and impracticable position that the bill should be amended so as to legislate that kind of guarantee.
That is impracticable and unworkable for two reasons. First of all, we are bound by an international agreement which we signed with the United States. Second, as the minister pointed out, it would offend GATT. Those two impediments are enough to destroy the suggested addition of sub-clause (g).
It is worthy of note that neither Canadian labour leaders themselves nor the steel and pipe producers in Canada wanted any such guarantees written into the bill. It also should be remembered-and this is for the benefit of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie-that Premier Blakeney of Saskatchewan, at the recent federal-provincial conference here in Ottawa, took a very strong stand that the pipeline legislation should not be obstructed by reason of the vital importance of the pipeline project to his province and his government, to say nothing of the national interest to be served and of the 100,000 man-year jobs that would be supplied in a time of high unemployment.
We on this side also wanted to achieve the admirable objective of guarantees with respect to Canadian content but our alternative was not the impracticable and unworkable alternative suggested by the NDP. Our alternative was set forth in the speech of our leader on August 14 last, when the project was first discussed. We wanted a parliamentary review. How much more preferable is the elective process than a civil service process for review. They suggested that a special committee should be set up comprised of civil servants but that has been ruled out of order. We wanted the elected representatives to do it by setting up a special committee, and the government has accepted that. They have gone a long way to meet our suggestions and have accepted that position.
The special standing committee on northern pipelines is going to be set up. It will review on a quarterly basis, or at least on a four-month basis-which is the extent to which I am prepared to negotiate-all aspects of the progress of the pipeline. All aspects, Mr. Speaker-Canadian content provisions, labour provisions, the orders and directions of the boards, the agreements that are reached, the contracts that are submitted. This committee is going to be hard at work looking

March 21, 1978

at every inch of the progress of that pipeline. It seems to me the government has done the right thing in accepting that suggestion, advanced by us in the first instance.


An hon. Member:: Why do you not cross the floor?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, if I had crossed the floor as some members of the NDP suggests, we would have the bill in its original form and not in the improved form it is in now.
If the special standing committee on northern pipelines meets on a quarterly basis, we can assure that the terms of the agreement reached by our two countries are actually being achieved. The important additional responsibilities of that committee in its review process would be to review all the activities of the agencies, the boards, the designated officers and the agreements that are made, as well as the regulations that I am sure will be made by the hundreds. The government has agreed to establish that committee for the purposes of review.
With respect to the argument about financial backstopping,
I think that is the most specious and empty argument I have heard from anyone familiar with the parliamentary process. There is no provision in this bill whatsoever which imposes a charge on the taxpayers of Canada. In order for that to happen, an amendment would have to be made to the bill. The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie knows that very well. There is no need for us now to write in a negative provision in the bill to prevent that. If we reach that stage-which I do not expect to happen-the government would be bound to bring in a proposed amendment to the bill to permit backstopping. That is simply not going to happen.
Some 22 amendments to this bill were proposed in committee. Half of them were disposed of by the concession of the government in accepting the proposition to set up a parliamentary review process. Among the rest were some major amendments, such as setting up a monitoring process to be carried out by the committee that will be formed and relating to the complete absence of a native presence in the bill. The government has accepted in part our suggestions with respect to writing the native population affected into the bill. We had very serious reservations with respect to the judicial process. The government has literally accepted all of our recommendations with respect to those amendments.
There is something I cannot understand, however. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) sat in on most of those meetings, agreed with every one of the amendments we presented, and agreed that they would achieve the objectives that his party is now attempting to achieve by these sham amendments-for that is what they are-for the purpose, I can only conjecture, of impressing the media.
The parliamentary review process that we have from the government now by way of a commitment is the very kind of guarantee we want. It will insist upon the implementation of the admirable objectives set out in the agreement.


An hon. Member:: Go over there.


An hon. Member:: Join them.
Northern Pipeline


Erik Nielsen: Hon. members tell me to go over to the other side, Mr. Speaker. I wonder which member over there will receive a telephone call from Premier Blakeney tomorrow telling him not to obstruct any more.
Their amendments are unacceptable. They are empty, they are specious, they are unnecessary, primarily because we have achieved the only practicable, workable solution with respect to seeing to it that the government lives up to its intentions and that the company lives up to its intentions by the monitoring process. This amendment to our Standing Orders will set up a committee of elected representatives of the people who will accept their responsibility.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) is indicating that he wishes to ask a question. He can do so only if it is accepted by the hon. member who has the floor. Will the hon. member accept a question?


Erik Nielsen: Certainly.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask one question of the hon. member for the Yukon. 1 assume he is well aware of the importance of this project in his part of the country. I think he gave the speech that he has just made a few weeks ago. The hon. member is talking about guarantees. Perhaps we should not have guarantees that it should be a competitive market situation.
I would like to ask the hon. member for Yukon if he knows or is aware of the fact that the steel industries and steel manufacturing concerns in Japan and Italy, to name two countries, are very heavily subsidized by their respective governments. When the bidding is being done for these contracts, is it possible for this House and this government to find out just how much public funds from those countries will be put into those contracts and those bids before those bids are placed. That is the crucial point. In Canada we can find out if there is any government subsidy with Stelco or Ipsco and so on, but I want to find out if there is any possible means, of which the the member is aware right now, by which we can find out in this country how much subsidy is given to the Japanese steel manufacturers and the Italian steel manufacturers so that they might just possibly underbid our own steel pipeline manufacturers.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, that question is very quickly and easily answered. I know the hon. member did not attend the committee meetings; he probably had other responsibilities. But if he read the committee reports and the bill he will see that the minister and the agency have the broadest possible powers with respect to the contracts that are let. Every agreement entered into must be submitted to the minister. Every agreement that is submitted to the minister must be submitted to the committee that is to be set up. It will not all happen at once, this project will take several years. So there will be an ongoing review by the elected representatives sitting in this

March 21, 1978
Northern Pipeline
House that will form a special committee. If we see that the government is not meeting their objectives as to Canadian content, then a debate will arise in this House and the government will be accountable.


An hon. Member:: Too late!


Erik Nielsen: It is not too late if it is done on a quarterly basis. The steel orders or the pipe orders will not be placed for five-year projects inside of three months. That would be ridiculous. The monitoring process plus the powers of the agency, plus the powers of the minister as well as the powers of the governor in council, which are so broad and sweeping in this bill, provide that kind of guarantee. That is to say nothing of the fact that the Canadian steel industry itself, which must know the factors inherent in the bidding process, is confident that it can outbid any other steel industry, wherever it is, be it in Japan, Italy or anywhere else. The same applies to the pipe industry. I am satisfied with that kind of comfortable position with respect to successfully gaining the majority of the Canadian content for this project.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to ask the member for Yukon whether he can cite anything in the bill or from the committee hearings that would give the Canadian government the right to delve into and investigate how bids are set up in Japan or Italy. Is there anything in this bill that gives the Canadian government the right to go to the other two countries and find out whether those governments have subsidized their own steel industry, or to what extent they underbid our own?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, that is a very silly question. The government has no power to get into the internal affairs of another country. The power the government has and the power which the standing committee will have will be to look at the contracts-


An hon. Member:: No way.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member asked me a question and I listened to him while he was asking it. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I listened to the hon. member while he was asking the question and now I ask him to listen to the answer. The government and the minister will have the power to veto the contracts that are intended to be entered into. That is where the crunch comes. If the government approves a contract which the hon. member might think offends the intention spelled out in the international agreement, that contract comes before the monitoring committee of this House and then we will have a word to say about it if they fall down on their job-


An hon. Member:: After the fact.


Erik Nielsen: It is after the fact by three months. I emphasize the fact that all these orders are not going to be placed within three months. We will have ongoing responsibility to be critical of the government, to expose any failures that they may fall heir to with respect to Canadian content provisions on an ongoing basis. Quite frankly, it would be political suicide

for them not to adhere to those Canadian content provisions in the light of that monitoring process.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have had some real difficulty this evening figuring out which party the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) belongs to. He has been defending the government legislation a lot more strongly than the government has.


An hon. Member:: Much more effectively.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Perhaps he has been defending it more effectively; I am not saying that he has not. Perhaps the minister for sport and fitness should move over one seat and let the happy wanderer from the Yukon join the happy rancher from Crowfoot.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I think that is his objective-to run as a Liberal candidate in the next election campaign.


An hon. Member:: He will soon be the unhappy rancher.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I am happy to see that the member from Edmonton is saying that the member for Yukon will soon be an unhappy rancher-


An hon. Member:: I meant the member for Crowfoot.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The member for Yukon seems to be very content to argue in the House that if the government that he has so much confidence in makes a mistake we can rectify an error right here on the floor of the House. If we cannot rectify it in the House, we can do so in the committee. In other words, we can make a correction after they have made a mistake.
I for one do not have that much confidence in the Liberal government. First of all, their priorities may not be the same as ours. Secondly, if we refer the question to a committee, the government has a majority on that committee and there is no way of knowing if we in the opposition can do anything to change what has happened or to change their minds. The member for Yukon has been a member of parliament longer than I have. He should know that when the government gets into House committees hon. members are often frustrated by the majority that sits across the way. There are absolutely no guarantees that if the government is doing something wrong we on this side of the House can rectify it. I say that to the government members as well. If they happen to lose the election-and it might be very soon-when they are sitting in the opposition I am sure they would want more guarantees than are in this legislation to stop a government that is doing the wrong thing. I quote no less an authority than the member for Yukon's hero, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner). The hon. member is defending the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who said on February 20 at page 3036 of Hansard, in response to points made on this side of the House about guarantees:
March 21, 1978

It should be noted that neither (11 A) of the anti-dumping regulations nor the imposition of countervailing duties for reasons of export financing subsidies appear to have been tested as yet.
Then he says something that is crucial:
Moreover, the anti-dumping option would really only come into play after the fact,-
And I stress, Mr. Speaker, "after the fact". He continues:
-which renders its use, other than as a threat mechanism, somewhat ineffective.
Here is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce saying that the anti-dumping provisions we have in this country are useless. He says they have been nothing more than a threat. Yet we have the member for Yukon saying that if we discover the government is not living up to its moral commitments-and really all we have in the legislation is moral commitments-then we can do something about it in the House.
If the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Faulkner) had time to look at the bill, he would probably agree that we are giving a blank cheque to the minister. His own colleague said we do not have any mechanism to ensure that we will have Canadian content. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said that the legislation is ineffective.
The hon. member for Yukon is playing with words. He picks up a dictionary and gives us the definition of "ensure" and "guarantee". The two words are very similar. However, that is not the point we are trying to make in this debate. Our point is that we should legislate guarantees so that there are commitments in the bill to have Canadian content.
The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) is trying to be consistent in the amendment he is moving. Motion No. 9, which should be coming a little later, states in part:
-the level of Canadian content is at least 90% with respect to the origin of products, services and their constituent components,-
That means that 90 per cent of what goes into the pipeline is to be Canadian. That is part of the legislation. Just as we have legislation in Canada which states that every month old age pensioners will receive cheques and every year income tax will be imposed upon Canadian citizens and companies, so we should have legislation stating that 90 per cent of what goes into the Canadian pipeline must be Canadian.
The way the legislation reads now, a lot is left to the imagination of a minister. The ideology of a minister, even of the same party, or the sensitivities of that department's bureaucrats to negotiations going on vis-a-vis trade and so on, might play an important role as to how "guarantee" or "ensure" is interpreted.
All the legislation says in clause 3(f) is "to advance national economic and energy interests and to maximize related industrial benefits by ensuring the highest possible degree of Canadian participation in all aspects" of the pipeline. That may mean 90 per cent. However, it may also mean 25, 30, 40
Northern Pipeline
or 50 per cent. We do not know what it will mean when it is not spelled out in the legislation.
The hon. member for Yukon referred to the premier of Saskatchewan. I spoke with A1 Blakeney a week ago Saturday when the federal cabinet came to Regina about this question. He is indeed happy that the pipeline is going to be built and that the Ipsco plant in Regina can build some of the plant. If there is fair competition, he is sure that Ipsco can compete. They are efficient, have good management and can compete with anybody in the world. What he is afraid of is unfair competition as a result of subsidies given by American or Japanese steel producers in order to get a contract.


Erik Nielsen: Does he endorse your amendments?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: He endorses the philosophy of the
amendments.


Erik Nielsen: Does he endorse your amendments?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I am sure he would endorse the amendments word for word. He certainly endorses the principle of what we are trying to do, namely legislate a guarantee that my constituents, the constituents of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and others in Saskatchewan will have jobs. They want security. They want a guarantee in the legislation.
The government talks about the importance of Canadian content and Canadian jobs, as do the members of the Progressive Conservative party. Why not put in the legislation what we are all talking about? Why be chicken-livered and leave it open to the interpretation of a future minister and future department? That is not good enough for Canadians. This is an important project that is going to cost a lot of money.
We are doing a favour to the United States by providing a land bridge to take American gas from one part of their country to another. In return, the fancy diplomatic language in the bill is not good enough. Instead of just saying we are going to ensure something, we should spell out guarantees in the legislation. That is not asking too much.
If the government really means what it is saying, why not legislate those guarantees in a clear and explicit way so that the Canadian people know they have security in the future? Workers in Saskatchewan, Sault Ste. Marie or wherever the steel is produced will then know what the future holds for them, and the companies can expand their plants and facilities accordingly.
That is not a hypothetical situation in my province. Ipsco is owned in part by the government of Alberta and in part by the government of Saskatchewan. They applied for a DREE grant to expand their plant and facilities on the prairies. Part of the future of that plant depends on whether they get a contract to help build the Alcan line and how large a contract they receive. If we can have a specific guarantee that a minimum 90 per cent of the content will be Canadian, they could plan their business and activities and the province could do likewise. That makes good business and economic sense.

March 21, 1978
Northern Pipeline
I am glad the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar has more sense than the hon. member for Yukon. If I understood him correctly, he said there would not be a Liberal elected there for years to come because of this type of legislation. It is this type of stupid legislation which hurts that party and makes people cynical about them at the federal level. I wish the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar would argue against the position taken by the hon. member for Yukon, who is defending the government.
The second part of the motion by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie is to ensure that the federal government will not have any financial obligation to the pipeline if at some time in the future more money is needed to complete construction. The hon. member for Yukon said there is no bill before the House which states that the federal government has to provide more money, that there is no mention in the legislation that more money will be needed, that there is no financial obligation, that everything will be okay. I have heard that argument many times in the past. The engineers and economists say a certain project will cost so much money. However, the final cost is much higher. I can think of many such publicly financed projects like Expo, the Olympics and the National Arts Centre, where the final cost was much higher. Many private projects cost much more on completion than originally estimated by architects and economists.
In this motion, we say that if there should happen to be this type of cost over-run, the Government of Canada, on behalf of the people of Canada, should not bear the responsibility of that over-run. That could be legislated very easily before we pass this bill. All we want from this government and this House is a commitment that in five or ten years, or how many years it takes to build the pipeline, the Canadian taxpayers will not be responsible for any deficit.
If the cost should be an extra $2 billion or $3 billion, we may see before this House a bill asking us to subsidize the pipeline. I remember many areas where the government has broken faith. The hon. member for Yukon is of the same mentality now as the hon. member for Crowfoot was a year ago when he was willing to forgive the Liberals for everything.
I remember the 1974 election. Many Liberals remember it with a certain amount of guilt. They promised they would never impose wage and price controls. They said the leader of the Conservative party was an evil man who was going to impose wage and price controls which would wreck the Canadian economy. They were certainly right about one thing; they ruined the Canadian economy. But it was not the Conservative party which brought them in, it was the Liberal party. It was the leader of the very party which one year prior to imposing controls reversed his stand and imposed them. In effect, they lied to the working people of this country. That is the type of integrity the government across the way really has. If they had that integrity then I do not know how the hon. member for Yukon can trust them when it comes to the pipeline.


Erik Nielsen: I trust the parliamentary process.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The hon. member says he trusts the parliamentary process. How were we able to stop the government imposing wage and price controls through the parliamentary process? There was nothing we could do. We tried. We fought. There were massive demonstrations in this country, including one of the largest this country has ever seen, certainly in my day, by the trade unions and working people against the legislation. Questions were asked in the House and there were all kinds of debates, but we could not stop them. The Liberals had a majority and they did not listen to us. They imposed on us a bill we did not want. So how can we stop them bringing in a bill if they come back with another majority, hypothetically, and in a couple of years ask us to bail out the pipeline? Can anybody answer that question? How can we stop them? We cannot do it. If the Conservative party thinks we can, I should like to see them take that argument to the people.


Erik Nielsen: It is up to the people at the polls.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A lot of us still have the memory of Mayor Jean Drapeau of Montreal.
Those are the two principal parts of the motion moved by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie. I suggest, in closing, that there are two main approaches we ought to be discussing in connection with this bill at the present stage. One is that we guarantee jobs so that we can build this country together from coast to coast. Surely we need some of that vision. In the second place, we find a very simple phrase in the motion which would guarantee to the Canadian people that they will not have to meet any financial obligation in the future to pay a cost over-run incurred by a private consortium which is building a pipeline across our country from one part of the United States to another.
Surely that, too, is a reasonable request, one which any reasonable Canadian would expect parliament to legislate on his behalf. The apologists for the oil companies, such as the hon. member for the Yukon, should be-


An hon. Member:: Ashamed.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: -ashamed of themselves. Or, perhaps, they will be getting up one day in parliament and saying: "I am sorry, we should have legislated those guarantees for the ordinary people of Canada because that is the job we were elected to do".


Mr. Young:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: You are not filibustering, are you?


Roger Carl Young: No. I just want to ask the hon. member a couple of very direct questions. One thing he has asked this government to do is to guarantee jobs for people in this country. I just want to ask him if he thinks that anyone in this country- anyone-has a guaranteed job. First of all, you have to work. Nobody in this country has a guaranteed job. He made his
March 21, 1978

argument on the basis that the government should be provided guaranteed jobs to people-guaranteed content-and then he went on to say he was taking the part of the "little people" and trying to protect the taxpayers.
I just want to ask the hon. member if he will help the taxpayers of this country and come forward on behalf of his party and on behalf of those for whom he is asking for guaranteed jobs and guarantee to the people of this country that, first, the work will be done on time; second, that it will be high quality work; and, third, that there will be no strikes, prompt delivery of goods and that we will get the job done? Let the hon. member come forward and give those guarantees to the "little people" of our country-the taxpayers.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I think those are very good questions. The first one was whether anyone had a guaranteed job in this country. Well, Mr. Speaker, there are quite a few in the Senate and they are guaranteed from the time one is appointed to age 75. There are also quite a few other guaranteed jobs in this country.


An hon. Member:: Through the Liberal party!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The second question the hon. member asked was whether there would be a good quality job done, whether the work would be done on time and whether delivery of goods would be made on time. I want to say very very simply, Mr. Speaker, that I have enough faith in the people of Canada and in the workers that they will do the job on time, that they will do good quality work, that they will provide good workmanship and that they will deliver the goods on time.


Roger Carl Young: I, too, have faith in the people!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I have that kind of faith in Canadians and that is why I am arguing that these things should be done by Canadians. I have that confidence.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member wishes to continue with his answer he will have to get the consent of the House because his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member seeking the consent of the House to complete his answer?
Is the House ready for the question?


Erik Nielsen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Having regard to the grouping proposed, may I suggest we get unanimous consent to defer the votes on the various groupings until the end of the debate on the report stage?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is in the rules, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will defer the vote. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the motion in the name of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.
All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75 the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now proceed to the consideration of motion No. 3 in the name of the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty).


Henry Perrin Beatty: Motion No. 3.
That Bill C-25, an act to establish the Northern Pipeline Agency, to facilitate the planning and construction of a pipeline for the transmission of natural gas from Alaska and northern Canada and to give effect to an agreement between Canada and the United States of America on principles applicable to such a pipeline and to amend certain acts in relation thereto, be amended in paragraph 17(1)(A) by striking out line 44 at page 8 and line 1 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"inces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec nominated by the Lieuten-".
He said: Mr. Speaker, we could perhaps call it ten o'clock. I undertake that when I speak tomorrow on the motion I shall be every bit as brief as my hon. friend.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, we all know that this fourth session of the thirtieth parliament is drawing to a close-


Some hon. Members:: Explain!


Stanley Haidasz: -and this may be my last opportunity to rise in this House to pursue my appeal of March 15 directed to the

March 21, 1978
Adjournment Debate
Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), asking her to intercede with the minister of health of Ontario.
We are faced today with increased costs for health care. Both as a general practitioner from a working man's area in Toronto and as the federal member of parliament for Park-dale, I have been concerned about health services and health costs and I, along with my colleagues in this House in previous parliaments, have promoted health insurance. In 1957 we passed the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act and in 1966 the Medical Care Act. In both of those measures the federal government entered a contract with the provinces to pay 50 per cent of the costs of hospitalization and medical insurance.
The people of Ontario were stunned a couple of weeks ago by the budget announcement that, effective May 1, 1978, OHIP premiums will be increased by 37.5 per cent. This excessive increase of health care premiums raises not only the cost of living above the AIB guideline of 6 per cent but is also a tax which is inequitable. Moreover, this increased premium comes at at time when hospitals are being forced to reduce their services because of cuts in the financial assistance provided by the provincial government.
An extra $271 million is expected to be raised to meet health costs in Ontario, but there is neither a guarantee nor a promise of improved service. Rather, there is the prospect of decreased service. The resultant huge premium will make health costs for Ontarians the highest contribution in Canada.
The fairest manner to obtain the money for health costs, I believe, would be taxes based on the ability of people to pay; or better, by cutting the fat and frills from various government programs. Six other provinces in Canada have eliminated health premiums completely and finance health costs with general revenues, claiming that there are fairer ways to get the money for such a need. In the remaining provinces, excluding Ontario, where premiums or their equivalent are in force, a much lower proportion of the total cost of health care is financed by them. In Ontario, however, we learn that it will be 34 per cent, whereas in Quebec the figure is 13 per cent and in Alberta only 10 per cent. It appears that Ontario has adopted an unfair and regressive policy. Why not divert some Wintario lottery funds to help meet the health costs of the people of Ontario?
This is not the time to raise taxes or premiums. It is, rather, the time for tax cuts and economic stimulation to ease unemployment, a duty of all provincial governments. We can endure a tax increase on alcohol, cigarettes or both because we can do without them, but we cannot do without health care or hospitalization when such are needed.
Since federal and provincial governments share responsibility for dealing with health matters in Canada, a formal structure has been established for federal-provincial collaboration and co-operation. The Government of Canada, as I mentioned, contributes approximately 50 per cent of the sharable cost of health and hospital services for the people of Canada. I

therefore believe that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has a role to play in seeing that we not only have a good standard of health care from coast to coast, but also that the cost of that health care is kept within reasonable bounds. That is why I appeal this evening to the minister, through her parliamentary secretary, to do whatever she can to intercede before the minister of health of Ontario and the Ontario treasurer on behalf of the people of Ontario, who are faced with this 37.5 per cent increase in OHIP premiums.


William Kenneth Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased indeed to have this opportunity to respond to my friend, the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz), and to comment on the 37.5 per cent increase in OHIP premiums which was announced in the recent Ontario budget.
I believe it is important to put the Ontario budget decision to increase OHIP premiums into the proper perspective. The decision is far more closely related to revenue policy and budget policy than it is to health policy. It is, quite simply, a choice of the Ontario government that raising OHIP premiums is preferable to increasing taxes or allowing an increase in the Ontario deficit level.
The OHIP premium system is, in fact, a form of taxation. It has very little to do with the actual utilization of the health care system. A premium system, like a sales tax, is regressive in nature since for most of the population it does not consider the ability to pay for the family or individual subscriber. Indeed, with a premium of the size introduced in the Ontario budget, the percentage of a family's income devoted to paying OHIP premiums can be substantial. For example, for a family head with gross income of $10,000, who pays the full premium himself, over 5 per cent of his income will be devoted to the OHIP premium tax. This percentage decreases with increasing family income since the premium is the same for everyone. The only exceptions to this are the elderly, who are exempted irrespective of their ability to pay the premium, and the low-income, who receive premium assistance or waiver of premium.
As well, it would be interesting to know how much money is being spent by the Ontario government on the collection of premiums, since it must have a separate administrative mechanism for this task, independent of its participation in the personal income tax system administered by the federal government on its behalf.
However, Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out that if Ontario increases its OHIP premiums, it is not because of a decrease in federal contributions to the province. In fact, the federal contributions to Ontario for fiscal year 1978-79 will increase by $250 million, covering 90 per cent of the expected increase of $276 million in total health expenditures in Ontario. This illustrates that the federal government tries to avoid as much as possible the need to increase substantially the direct cost of health to people.
March 21, 1978

Furthermore, this recent decision illustrates a rather interesting change in policy for Ontario. In 1971 the Premier of Ontario announced important reforms to the OHIP premium system. One of the reforms which was highlighted at that time was a general reduction in premium levels. The 1978 version of reform announced by the same government is a general premium increase of 37.5 per cent. This change has taken place even though health costs in Ontario are consuming a lower percentage of the total governmental expenditures than was the case in 1970-71.
I do want to make several comments on the implications for the health programs per se, even though I view the OHIP changes-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. That will be impossible because the allotted three minutes for the answer have expired.


TRANSPORT-MOVEMENT OF POTATOES FROM EASTERN TO CENTRAL CANADA
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, our farmers, our marketing boards and even the provincial government have been on record for a long time regarding their views about the approaching crisis in potato transportation. I first drew this matter to the government's attention about 16 months ago, on November 30, 1976. Half a year later the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) got around to appointing a group to study the problem, in May, 1977. We still have no official word on new rail cars, and meanwhile the rail car unit or reefer car fleet of some 4,500 a few years ago has new been drastically reduced to some 700.
Finally, in July of last year the first report of the government group studying potato distribution was released. This group, headed by a senior official from Transport Canada, Mr. Nick Mulder, included a representative from DREE in Prince Edward Island, and made a valuable contribution to underline the present concern and growing apprehension about potato transportation.
In this group the Minister of Transport's own officials spelled out to him what Islanders have known for years about our potato industry. They told him that "the problems have become acute" in distribution; that "of late, because of cost pressures, the lean years seem to be outnumbering the fat ones" for our farmers; and that "the problems of potato distribution have been ignored too long" by government. If that is not enough to get action from this minister, when his own officials condemn his neglect of the industry, I do not know what will.
The only reason there was no crisis this season was the extremely low level of shipments from New Brunswick, thus meaning there were enough transportation vehicles available to move the heavy shipment of potatoes this season to market. The minister, to his credit, did upgrade the potato ports in the three maritime provinces, but on the single, most significant and immediate need of the industry, new rail cars, he has been absolutely silent, even though the first report was made in July of last year.
Adjournment Debate
Last July the minister's own officials informed him that at least 170 new cars were needed for the next season. Rail will obviously continue to be the backbone of our potato distribution network, carrying some 85 per cent of our shipments to central Canada.
Two weeks ago, on March 7, the minister promised me in the House of Commons that an announcement on new rail cars would be made roughly within two weeks. His two weeks are up today. Today is an important day for me because it happens to be my daughter's birthday. Certainly I will remember the minister's failure to make an announcement by this date. If he has any regard for the situation in Atlantic Canada, surely he will live up to that commitment.
The Minister of Transport is not the only footdragger on this issue. I do not think it would be an exaggeration to say that Canadian National Railways has obstructed progress on this problem at almost every stage. Instead of constructive proposals for helping our potato industry, our supposed public railway has given excuse after excuse for washing their hands of the problem. Fortunately, the Mulder report shows up the excuses of CN for what they are-a sorry evasion of public responsibility by one of Canada's oldest Crown corporations. CN indicates that there are enough rail cars.
The report prepared last summer, after extensive consultations with informed potato industry representatives, indicated that at least 170 new cars are needed for the next shipping season alone. CN said that the new cars should not be its responsibility. The report referred to the following:
. . . acceptance by transportation companies of the responsibility for supplying equipment which is properly designated and maintained for potato transportation . . .
Specifically it recommends that the new cars be ordered and paid for by CN. The report continues by indicating that CN should lower its rates and ensure stricter government control, inspection and maintenance of cars during the cold shipping season. In addition, the report shows that CN's claim that trucks will eventually replace rail cars is a lot of hot air. That is the only hot air CN has with respect to its reefer cars. The claim that trucks will replace rail cars is absolute nonsense, as every potato grower knows.
There is an example in the report which illustrates how unresponsive CN has been on this question. Canadian Pacific, which is a privately owned company, has agreed to lease and improve the extra rail cars needed for the short term, while CN simply continues to make excuses. Recently there was the further suggestion on an interim basis, as I mentioned to the hon. minister the other day, that some 300 cars were available at roughly one-quarter of the cost from Hanover Trust.
In my opinion, one of the most valuable conclusions of the government's report is the following statement:
The federal government must provide the leadership and stimulus to resolve the major problems over the next few years.
We are still awaiting an answer from the minister. He is not present in the chamber tonight, but perhaps his parliamentary
4012

March 21, 1978
Adjournment Debate
secretary can finally indicate some action after 16 long months.


Mr. Charles Lapointe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased that the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) raised this important question of the movement of potatoes which gives me an opportunity to point out briefly what the government is doing in this area.
For the past year, the federal government has worked with various potato dealers to improve the movement of that commodity from eastern to central Canada and also to export markets. Of course we had excellent co-operation, assistance and support from the P.E.I. Potato Marketing Board, the New Brunswick Potato Shippers' Association, the Canadian National, the Canadian Pacific, the Atlantic Provinces Truckers Association, the staff in the ports of St. John, Halifax and Prince Edward Island and also, of course, Mr. Speaker, the assistance and co-operation of the governments of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick.
In working in close co-operation with them, Mr. Speaker, and in establishing the facts and the real needs we were able to reach a general agreement on the measures to be taken and to implement those measures for the following purposes. First of all, one of the prime goals was to reduce the rate of increase in freight rates applicable to potatoes. Second, one of the other goals was to provide more efficient trucking for potatoes. Third, we wanted to improve the port facilities, more particularly in the port of St. John and, finally, to provide a larger number as well as a better use and better quality of freight cars.
Last year, we also showed that there would be no shortage of cars in the current crop year, contrary to the alarm of an imminent crisis and shortage of cars expressed by opposition members, as indeed the hon. member for Egmont repeated tonight.
As a result of the above mentioned measures, the movement of potatoes from Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick to central Canada and export markets caused very little problems during the current crop year. Based on the facts that will be submitted to it by railways and shippers, the cabinet will make a decision in the coming weeks about the additional cars that will be required for the crop year 1978-79. The government is quite aware of the fact that additional cars will be required next year and that they will not be available unless specific steps are taken.
Once a decision is made on the cars for 1978-79, the working group on potatoes will continue to consider and implement other measures to improve the movement of potatoes. For example, they will be looking at further port

improvements in Saint John and the need for additional cars two or three years from now, the possibility of increased use of containers and trucks, physical improvements at loading and unloading points, etc. By working closely with industry, the provinces and the carriers over an extended period, the government will deal with the many problems efficiently and effectively. The distribution system for potatoes has been improved by steps already undertaken; the acquisition of additional cars, and other measures to be implemented during 1978, will improve the system even further.


NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT-FRONTENAC COUNTY, ONT - CONSTRUCTION OF TEMPORARY BRIDGE TO FACILITATE TRAVEL
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, due to my decision to retire from the House of Commons at the termination of this thirtieth parliament, this will probably be one of the last occasions on which I will use the adjournment session to voice questions and grievances raised by my constituents in Frontenac-Lennox and Addington before this House. This being so, I wish to thank you for the many past favours and your indulgence to me and my constituency.
My remarks tonight stem from my question of March 14, 1978, as reported at page 3751 of Hansard, where I asked the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Faulkner) the following question:
Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I have in my possession a petition from 120 residents, including tourist operators, in the townships of Pittsburgh and Storrington, in Frontenac county, fronting on the Rideau River system, protesting the fact that with the construction of the new Brass Point bridge across the Rideau River, a detour of up to 30 miles will be necessary in the daily travel of the inhabitants and tourists, especially to and from Storrington, in order to gain access to Highway No. 15 and the Kingston area. My question is: why did this department not provide a temporary Bailey bridge to serve the public during the ten-month life of this $1.6 million contract, and avoid the extra energy, expense outlay and inconvenience to the people, to our tourist operators and to our American customers?
The minister on that day answered me as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I will have to look into that matter and report to the hon. member.
And that was done. I recall that in sessions of our council at the municipal level petitions from constituents commanded the highest priority, and that also applies to this House of Commons. I have here in my hand the petition I referred to which is signed by about 120 constituents from Storrington and Pittsburgh townships, in which they complain of up to 30 miles of detour now required to gain access to highway 1 5 in the Kingston area during the seven months of construction of the new Brass Point bridge. Many of these petitioners are tourists and/or employees in the tourist industry. The petitioners feel that if there is no temporary crossing provided at the point of construction of the new bridge many of these tourist operators will lose their businesses or have to go out of business this summer and accept unemployment insurance as a result of the drop in business due to no thoroughfare. American tourists who patronize the other side of the Rideau River and the lake
March 21, 1978

areas of Storrington will not know how to reach their recreational destinations and will probably go elsewhere.
I thank the minister for his letter of March 20 in response to my question. I note that he suggests that I send him a copy of the petition which I received from the local residents and that the matters of a temporary bridge will be reconsidered. 1 have with me another copy of the petition which I send him now across the floor of the House.
I called today at the site of construction and I was very courteously received by the departmental men in charge and by the contractor. I was in touch from there by telephone with Mr. Ken Dick, the department's superintendent of investigation of construction at Cornwall, and Mr. Christakos, the Ontario regional director, and they stated they were only too glad to co-operate in something economically feasible that would help to solve the temporary transportation problem at Brass Point.
I thank the minister and his department for the action being taken to provide us with a new bridge at Brass Point, and for the action that I am sure will now be taken to provide either a ferry service or a temporary bridge to solve this problem.


Mr. Ross Milne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, to learn that the hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack) does not intend to contest the seat for the next parliament. I think that we have differed on many issues at times, but I want to wish him well in his retirement and to say that I think he has been a tremendous ambassador for the constituency that he has represented so
Adjournment Debate
ably over the years. Indeed, tonight he is here at this late hour speaking on behalf of the concern of his constituents.
The hon. member might be interested, Mr. Speaker, to know that the Brass Point bridge, which is being reconstructed, dates from 1887 when it was built and paid for by the department of railways and canals. About 75 years ago, the original wood spans were replaced by four steel spans. Five years ago, the load limit of the bridge was reduced from five tons to two tons because an underwater investigation showed that the cribs, which were constructed prior to 1900, were not capable of supporting heavy loads. As a result, a decision was made to build a new bridge with a load limit of 15 tons, capable of carrying school buses, ambulances and fire-fighting vehicles.
The townships of Pittsburgh and Storrington were advised of the decision to build a new bridge and were invited to a meeting with the contractor. The matter of a temporary bridge was raised at this initial meeting. It was the consensus of that meeting that it was not practical to place a temporary crossing because of the length of the crossing, the depth of the water and the fact that vessels would have to be accommodated during the navigation season. Moreover, the cost of providing a temporary bridge has been estimated at more than $250,000.
In keeping with the minister's letter to the hon. member, and being in receipt of the petition he sent across the floor tonight, I will give him the undertaking that the minister and the department will have a further look at what alternatives might be available to solve this problem.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10:24 p.m.
80033-41 >4

Wednesday, March 22, 1978