1978-12-14

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with an urgent matter of pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the Quebec air controller trainees have decided to boycott their training in Cornwall to protest against the discrimination of which they are the victims and that the minister responsible has deemed advisable to launch an inquiry into charges of discrimination against Francophone students, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That the House unanimously appeal to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) to table as soon as possible in the House the report on that inquiry to avoid a repetition of the sad story of the Gens de Fair du Quebec.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AWARDS AND DECORATIONS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the failing health of that distinguished but retiring Canadian, Sir William Stephenson, otherwise known as "Intrepid", head of a special allied intelligence unit during the war, and his outstanding contribution to the success of the
allied forces during the Second World War, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling):
That this House support the move beginning to gather momentum to have Sir William Stephenson designated as a Companion of the Order of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member will recognize that, in another form that is a motion which I have not consistently put to the House under this Standing Order.


NDP FUND-RAISING ADVERTISING-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the fact that I, as well as many thousands of other innocent Canadians, have received, unsolicited, through the mails an appeal for a contribution to the NDP from one Terry Grier who states correctly that "Ed Broadbent needs help", and in view of the fact that the contribution is requested not for the purpose of winding up that party but to enable it to continue to spread noxious doctrines among the electorate, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall):
That the Leader of the NDP and Mr. Grier be awarded jointly the trash mailer of the year award for 1978 and that both also be awarded-


Mr. Speaker:: 
INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the urgent and pressing necessity of this matter, I wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43.
In view of the continuous representation since October 27 by the band council of the Montreal Lake reserve, supported by resolutions, reaffirmed by a selection board comprised of the Department of Public Works, the Indian Affairs regional office, my representation as their member, a telex from the president of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians and a telex from the director of operations, Department of Indian Affairs, in spite of which a decision has not been rendered on the selection of an architect for an approved school, I move,
80067-62Vz

December 14, 1978
seconded by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes):
The adjournment of the House for a debate on government policy whether or not Indians have been excluded from the consultation and decision-making policy involving Indian schools.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity.
In light of the current lay-offs of qualified pilots by Transair Limited of Winnipeg, in light of the fact that Air Canada does not exercise its prerogative on the Winnipeg-Chicago run, for which it holds the rights, and considering the fact that Pacific Western Airlines and Transair have applied for several new western Canadian air routes which, if implemented, would alleviate the work slowdown and allow PWA and Transair to hire back all the pilots on lay-off, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski):
That the House direct the Minister of Transport to instruct the Canadian Transport Commission to allow Pacific Western Airlines and Transair additional western routes and the Chicago-Winnipeg run immediately.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INTRODUCTION OF IMPORT QUOTAS ON LOW-WAGE COUNTRIES-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion, under Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. As imports from low-wage countries are taking away a steadily increasing share of the Canadian market from Canadian products, thus causing Canadian workers to be laid off in ever-increasing numbers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling):

That this House direct the Minister of Finance to introduce import quotas, to be applied against imports from low-wage countries in order to retain the same high proportion of the Canadian market for Canadian producers as the United States and European Common Market do to protect their domestic producers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of the decision of the Government of Canada to cancel the building of a new maximum security prison in the town of Selkirk, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Masniuk):
That the Solicitor General table all studies and supporting documents which now validate the reversing of the definite decision made by his department in May of 1977 to "proceed immediately with the construction of a maximum security prison for Manitoba".


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As the minister knows, or should know, the Indian and Inuit people of this country have health problems of a magnitude far greater than the general population of Canada.
How can the minister justify unilateral action which will affect adversely the health of Indians and Inuit in Canada and the delivery of health services to these people without consulting the Indian community? By way of example, I mention the 30 maritime Indian chiefs who are in Ottawa at the present time and with whom the minister has refused to meet despite repeated representations by myself and, in particular, by my Conservative colleagues from the Atlantic provinces.
December 14, 1978


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the last insinuation of the hon. member. 1 never received the two representations to which he referred. However, for the first time on Monday I received telexes from four Indian groups representing different interests in the country. They asked to meet with me today. Unfortunately, my agenda has been fully booked for a long time and I could not accommodate that request. It was unknown to me prior to Monday.
Two or three weeks ago I met at length with representatives of the National Indian Brotherhood, but I do not remember the exact date. The hon. member is wrong when he says there are changes in the health delivery system. There are no such changes. We continue to provide all the health care for which we are responsible. We are talking here only of uninsured health expenditures such as eyeglasses, dental expenditures and transportation.


Mr. Clark:: And drugs.


Monique Bégin: I have answered the question often. I issued guidelines in the month of September because of expenditures which could not be justified by anyone.


John Robert Holmes: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the minister, let me re-emphasize this. As I interpret it, and other people who have read the guidelines, many people will be affected, such as those who are diabetics and those with heart problems. When one looks at factors such as infant mortality and life expectancy in the Indian and Inuit communities of Canada, one will realize that they are absolutely abnormal and beyond comprehension when compared to an average community. 1 would say to the minister-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member have a question?


John Robert Holmes: Will the minister reconsider her position and meet with the maritime Indian chiefs who are present in Ottawa today? This is a problem which is reflected in Indian and Inuit communities across Canada. Will the minister do that?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, no changes in circumstances permit me to change the guidelines. I ensured that the appeal system was the simplest and fairest possible. I think that is very important. The guidelines assure to all Indians in need of assistance 50 per cent more than provincial assistance gives people on welfare in Canada.
Those are my guidelines. I cannot accept the concept of there being no guidelines because as a result costs will skyrocket. I take my responsibility seriously to define the rules of the game and ensure that they are fair for everybody.
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Except for diabetics, those with heart trouble and those who happen to be Indian.


NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR NATIVE PEOPLES
John Robert Holmes: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. As the minister knows, the nutrition survey study indicated that the Indian and Inuit people had severe nutritional problems not experienced by the vast majority of Canadians.
In view of that fact, how does the minister justify the unilateral discontinuance of noon-hour lunches to Indian children, which are essential as part of a nutritional program in many Indian communities in Canada, and yet approve a movement of the department to Hull which cost over $500,000, with an annual rent of $6 million? This move, which was opposed by the Indian community-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that the comparison is a fair and equitable one. If the hon. member is seriously interested in the nutritional question, and I believe he is, the answer is not simply noon-hour lunches; the nutritional problem in the north largely relates to the over-all diet.
We have probably done more in the last two years in an attempt to get country food circulated through the communities than has ever been done before. That is, in large measure, the direction we would have to go in dealing with the nutritional problem.


INDIAN BANDS' PARTICIPATION IN POLICY ON SCHOOLS
Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the fact there was a meeting involving the Department of Indian Affairs, the Department of Public Works and Indians, at which an architect was to be selected and to which a unanimous recommendation has already gone forward, and the Minister of Public Works this morning told a delegation that he alone is the one who must make the decision, has there been any change in the policy which was announced in 1973 in which the then minister of Indian affairs stated that full participation would be accorded Indian bands in determining questions affecting Indian education?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned, in my area of responsibility the policy of full consultation continues.


Stanley James Korchinski: Will you, then, consult with the Minister of Public Works?

December 14, 1978

Oral Questions HEALTH AND WELFARE


FUND TO COMBAT OCCUPATIONAL HAZARDS IN ASBESTOS INDUSTRY
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As the minister knows, the federal government has already given doctors McDonald, Corbett and Gibbs $100,000 to look into the problem of occupational hazards in the asbestos industry.
Is the minister also aware of the fact that the privately financed Institute of Occupational and Environmental Health, of the Quebec Asbestos Mining Association, has given six times that amount of money to the same doctors to look into the same problem?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of that but I will look into it.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the same minister whether or not there is a conflict of interest, in view of the fact that these doctors, particularly the doctors McDonald-a husband and wife team-have refused to divulge their findings to the public even though they were publicly financed in the amount of $100,000. Is there a conflict of interest, or not?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have some time to look into the matter. I shall investigate fully and report to the House.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I find the minister's responses totally unacceptable. Obviously, she-


Monique Bégin: I was not aware.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: The minister should have been aware. My supplementary is this: will the minister table in the House all the information, not only from the public inquiry but also any private information which this team of researchers-academics who find it beneath their dignity to divulge their information to the public-may have? Will she make all this information public, and not just that held by this private group of asbestos mining companies?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I would have appreciated receiving notice of the hon. member's question, because it is a detailed question on one particular case. I do not understand why he prejudges the terms of the contract for which these people have received research money. I said 1 will look into it, and I will and report to the hon. member.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. During his recent visit to Brussels, was the minister able to reassure our NATO allies that Canada would fulfil the commitment made by the Prime Minister and the minister himself to increase the over-all defence budget of Canada by 3 per cent, in real terms, each year for five years?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Our NATO allies were pleased with the progress we are making: not as pleased as with some other countries, but in the main very pleased with the progress that has taken place in Canada's contribution to the alliance.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I take it that the minister believes we are going to fulfil our commitment of 3 per cent, in real terms, for the year. Last May, the minister's officials estimated that we would not quite be able to reach the 3 per cent figure. Since that time the Prime Minister has announced his reductions and the Department of National Defence has accepted a $150 million reduction although, granted, it is not all for this year. By what percentage, in real terms, is the budget going to increase according to NATO standards this year?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, it will be about 2.2 per cent for this year, and it will be somewhat less than that in the 1979-80 period when that reduction does take place.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In answer to an opposition inquiry on November 16, the minister told the House that he would look into the safeguards treaty in respect of Argentina to find out if it was within the power of Canada to prohibit any more nuclear or uranium assistance or supplies to that country in the event it was going into the reprocessing cycle. The member of the opposition was quoting from a dispatch in the Latin American Review which indicated that Argentina was actually doing that.
Has the minister looked at the safeguards treaty, and could he tell the House whether we can now prohibit that type of assistance to Argentina in the event that they are doing this?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, my recollection is that I answered that question for the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. My first response was that there had been a denial
December 14, 1978

that the quote attributed to the Argentinian spokesman was correct, as least that he was not a spokesman for the Argentinian government.
As for our rights under the safeguards treaty, 1 am speaking from memory and I would ask the hon. member to give me the opportunity to check it again: 1 think the answer is that our safeguards treaty does, in fact, give us authorization to cease shipments or cease co-operation in the event of the kind of development to which that particular story referred; but, once again, I am speaking from memory. I will look into it again and try to respond in more detail.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: A supplementary question. Is the minister also aware of a story in the Washington Post under the byline of a gentleman by the name of Benjamin who has indicated that he has taped the actual conversation with Rear Admiral Madero who is spokesman for the Argentinian government on nuclear and uranium matters. He has very definitely indicated that Argentina is doing just exactly that. Mr. Benjamin is willing to make this tape available to Canadian embassy officials in Washington.
Is the minister aware of these developments, that the Argentinian authorities are doing this so they can stay ahead of Brazil in the arms race and, if so, what is the action of this government?
Oral Questions


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, when I appeared before the committee last week I said that it was impossible to refund those taxes for inventories. If we did that for the automobile dealers, we would have to do it for everybody. This would be very expensive in terms of the number of bureaucrats who would have to work on the procedure. At the same time, we would be losing $300 million of revenue and adding $300 million to the deficit-and the opposition are always complaining that we have too large a deficit.


Mr. Kempling:: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. Not everyone sees the situation the way he does. Will the minister agree to meet with the Federation of Automobile Dealers in the immediate future? The federation has had a request in to his office for several weeks. Will he agree to meet with them?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly be pleased to meet them if we can arrange a meeting. I do not know what the usefulness will be, but if they insist, I can meet them.
* # *


PUBLIC SERVICE
Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am aware, as I said in my first answer, that we have been assured that this is not a spokesman for the government. That is point No. 1.
The second point is that there was initially a claim that the admiral in question was being misquoted. Subsequent to that I heard reports along the lines the hon. member has just quoted. I have asked for further details on these to have them confirmed. When I get that information I will be in a better position to answer more definitively.
Speaking from memory, once again, I think what they are talking about is some kind of experimental arrangement. That may be where the distinction is in terms of the denials in Argentina and the understandings we have in this country. It is a very complicated matter and I will be glad to try to get a written response for the hon. member.


FINANCE
William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. The minister has received hundreds of letters and telegrams from automobile dealers across Canada. Would the minister advise if he has come to a decision on the request for a rebate of excise tax on the difference between 12 per cent and 9 per cent on automobile inventories that were in place at the time of the budget on November 16?


TABLING OF STUDY ON OVERCLASSIFICATION
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. My question deals with the overclassification study undertaken by the government with regard to the public service. The minister's predecessor, on at least three occasions, made a commitment to my hon. friend, the hon. member for Hamilton West, that this study would be tabled in the House and action arising from it would be indicated to the House. Can the minister tell us now if he is prepared to table this report?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I indicated to the hon. member for Hamilton West that I would be tabling it late last week or early this week. Unfortunately, there have been a couple of complications. I hope to have it ready for tomorrow; if not, Monday.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, will the minister, at the time he tables the report, indicate to the House what action will flow from it? Will he indicate whether he is going to engage in red-circling dismissals or just what procedures will result from this study? Also, what opportunity will the House have to discuss it-in response to a statement on motions, by referral to the appropriate committee of the House, or through some other method if one can be found?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I am considering whether it will simply be a tabling of the report or, as the hon. member suggests, a statement on motions. I will make a decision later today or tomorrow.

December 14, 1978
Oral Questions


COST OF BOOKLET CIRCULATED TO EMPLOYEES
Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. Could he advise this House of the cost of the booklet being distributed by Treasury Board, entitled "Proposed Changes in the Public Service Staff Relations Act" and whether it is the intention of the government to permit the bargaining agents access to the same delivery system for reply to this booklet?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I think the cost of this publication was in the vicinity of 9 cents per copy, which we felt was a reasonable cost to be incurred for distributing it to members of the public service.
In so far as the latter part of the question is concerned, it is interesting that I was with my friend, the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, when Bill C-28 was before the House and I was accused, as a member of the government, of having failed miserably in communicating our side of the issue to all public servants in Canada: they have heard a great deal about the union side and were very distressed that they had not heard a single word from their employer, the government. We felt it was very important that we put before them the position of the government, their employer, on this issue. We feel the cost of less than a dime per employee is not unreasonable.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his capacity as acting minister of transport.
A week ago Tuesday there was a meeting in Newfoundland about the Newfoundland railway. The House of Assembly has since passed a resolution, supported by all parties, that the railway should continue and be supported by the Government of Canada.
Could the minister tell us whether it is now the policy of the Government of Canada-as he said in a telex of last Tuesday, a week ago-that the government will provide direct payments to CN to cover clearly identifiable losses sustained by CN in carrying out their special responsibilities in Newfoundland in order to maintain effective rail service in Newfoundland and to avoid serious dislocation and lay-offs. Is that now government policy, and when will these arrangements come into effect?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am not the acting minister of transport.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wanted to be clear in what capacity the Secretary of State for External Affairs is answer-

ing the question. It would have to be in some capacity related to his responsibility as Secretary of State for External Affairs, or Acting Prime Minister.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, my question is to whoever is acting minister of transport or whoever is prepared to accept responsibility for the Secretary of State for External Affairs' telex of November 30. My question will be to whoever that is.
Is it now the policy that the government will make direct payments to CN for the operation of the Newfoundland railway?


Mr. Charles Lapointe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, first the hon. member should say whether it is a telegram from the Secretary of State or from the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As for particulars on the matter, 1 will take good note of it and provide details to the member.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Simcoe North.


John Carnell Crosbie: Here is your telex from the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the galloping increase in geriatric care costs across Canada due to an aging population, necessitating more teaching research and chairs of medicine in the universities, what contribution is the government making to the health care and disease prevention plan of the former minister of national health and welfare?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, the need for Manpower training courses to cover the field of geriatrics properly in Canada has not yet been satisfactorily defined. As soon as I receive from the deans of medical schools and other interested bodies a better definition of the needs, I will raise it immediately with my provincial colleagues at a federal-provincial meeting.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Will the minister consider broadening the field of health and welfare to include the geriatric field?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the new bureau on aging which has started operating in my department will include geriatrics. I thank the hon. member for his suggestion.
December 14, 1978


WHITE PAPER ON AMATEUR SPORT
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport). 1 think it is one her legal counsel will allow her to answer.
About a year ago the minister refused to extend the deadline for submissions in response to her green paper on sport, the reason being that she had a deadline to meet in preparing the report. Will the minister now tell us why she is delaying the issuing of her white paper on amateur sport, and whether that is due to the postponement of the election or the disruption within her department because of resignations?


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, the response to the question is quite simple. Due to new economic priorities within the government, I have had to take a little more time with my white paper. I am sure the critic of my department will be very pleased to know that in spite of the deadline for the white paper, we have continued to receive representations from sports people all over the country which we have been taking into account in its preparation.


Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sure the sports people will be disappointed to learn that their priorities are not as high as the minister seems to imply they are. Will the minister confirm that negotiations are under way and that a bill is being drafted to change Sports Canada into a Crown corporation? If so, is that one of the reasons for the delay in both the white paper on sport and the green paper on recreation?


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the matter of the green paper on recreation, I expect that to be before this House very shortly.
With regard to the other question the hon. member raises, that is a possibility but one might want to consider other options. Of course, what we are looking for in sports is to have a better system with more flexibility so that sports people can have more to say about their affairs. This will be included in the white paper. I trust the hon. member will wait until it is released to hear about that.


TRANSPORT
Hon. Francis Fox (Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of Transport, but as he is absent, I shall direct it to his parliamentary secretary. In view of the representations made to the Minister of Transport by the suburban mayors of Two Mountains, Mount Royal, West Island and South Shore at the meeting which the hon. member for Chambly and I had called together, could the
Oral Questions
parliamentary secretary advise the House whether the Minister of Transport is now prepared to ask the Canadian National Railways to impose a one-year moratorium on its program to phase out its commuter service around greater Montreal, in view of the fact that a recently published report to the Montreal Urban Community recommends both the integration of commuter service and the acceptance of the responsibility for the payment of the operation deficits on a large section of these lines?


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, the minister has read with much interest the findings of the Gascon report to the effect that commuter trains should be integrated into the Montreal urban transport system. Following this report and also the representations made by the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes and his colleague the hon. member for Chambly, the minister has accepted to officially request the president of the CNR to reconsider his phasing-out plan and to greatly reduce the rate increase, if there is one, to become effective on January 1.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, can the Acting Prime Minister tell the House whether the same fellow who wrote the question wrote the answer?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


POST OFFICE
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Postmaster General is a follow-up of the question I asked him last Friday.
Have officials in the Post Office Department received for themselves and/or their families passes from airline companies? If so, has the minister given consideration to whether or not the receiving of such passes raises the possibility of a conflict of interest on the part of his officials, as the Post Office Department is involved in awarding very substantial mail contracts to airline companies?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, that question was asked by the hon. member last Monday, I believe. I verbally asked the Deputy Postmaster General if any of these passes were being used for anything other than business matters. I was verbally told they were not. However, I have also asked the Deputy Postmaster General to make a full report on this. As soon as I receive a reply, I will inform the hon. member.


David Orlikow: Will the minister also ask the deputy minister to find out whether passes were obtained not just for officials

December 14, 1978
Oral Questions
in his department but for members of their families, which would certainly not be considered part of their work?


Mr. Lamontagne:: Mr. Speaker, I am as anxious as the hon. member to get the reply from the Deputy Postmaster General. As soon as I receive it, I will let him know.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question was to be directed to the Minister of Communications, who has been in the House one day this week. Today she is in Florida, so I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister, whoever he may be. I am glad to see it is the Minister of Finance who has spoken about restraint to the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I will get to the question, if hon. members opposite will keep quiet. In this time of restraint which the Acting Prime Minister and others have been professing, could he please explain to the House the reason it is necessary, at the launching of Anik B tomorrow, to have present one minister, two Liberal members, two deputy ministers, two assistant deputy ministers and two executive assistants, separate and apart from 35 staff and directors of Telesat and 100 other invited guests? This is the third or fourth launching of a satellite, and it is not a novel event in Canadian history.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the details of this. I will look into the matter. I can appreciate the frustration of the hon. member over the fact that the minister forgot to invite him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, 1 must say that I appreciate that answer, and the minister is quite correct. In 1968, at the launching of the first satellite we ever put up, there was all-party representation and at subsequent launchings-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: -there was not this great extravaganza. I appreciate the Acting Prime Minister's handicap. Can he assure the House that he will try to obtain the financial details and the involvement of the Canadian government? Admittedly, many of these people will pay part of their expenses but the expenses of many others will be paid for by the Canadian taxpayer.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it is very simple. If the hon. member puts his question on the order paper, he will receive a quick answer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, because of the noise, I was not sure you had recognized me. I thank you very much.
My question is for the Minister of Agriculture whom I know as an honest man, one who can take his responsibilities. 1 would like to ask him, Mr. Speaker, what progress has been made in cabinet regarding the decision on the establishment of a national poultry marketing board. I asked the minister about it on several occasions. He answered me every time and he gave some information to the House, but the fact is that we are almost at the end of December and producers are still waiting for a decision of the cabinet on this issue. Could the minister tell us now, in his usual sincere and straightforward fashion, when producers can expect a final decision to be made about the establishment of this marketing board?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the honest words spoken by the hon. member at the beginning of his question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: With regard to the national broiler marketing agency, the answer is "very soon".


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Can the minister tell the House if, when the establishment of this marketing board is finally decided, production quotas will be set according to December figures or if provincial production quotas will be set according to the request for the establishment of the board, in order to be as fair as possible to all producers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we want to be as fair as possible and we will use the historic production records over a five-year period. That may go back to the first time or the second time the hearings were held, but the historic production of producers will be protected. Negotiations have been going on for
December 14, 1978

several months with our main trading partner in this commodity, the United States.


TRANSPORT
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.
Since the minister has decided to launch an inquiry into the discriminations against French-speaking trainees who are studying to become controllers, can the parliamentary secretary tell the House today if this inquiry has been completed, since students have returned to work, and if so, can he give us his word that he will table the report in the House and make it public?


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Leader of the Opposition will not say that I wrote my answer with the hon. member for Joliette. Be that as it may, I am very happy the latter brought up this matter. Indeed, 16 Quebec students went back to Cornwall last Monday, and we promised them two Francophone instructors as early as on that day, as well as a co-ordinator of training in the French language. With regard to the possibility of discrimination at the school, we have asked the administration to make an inquiry. It has not yet been completed. I cannot therefore promise, Mr. Speaker, to table a report whose contents 1 have not seen. In addition, I should like to say to the hon. member that the Official Languages Commissioner is also to give us a report within the next few days.


REPORT ON INQUIRY INTO QUEBEC AIR CONTROLLER TRAINEES IN CORNWALL
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.
The parliamentary secretary will understand why the Leader of the Opposition made that remark: 1 put the same question to the hon. member, the parliamentary secretary, two months ago. As the latter pointed out that progress has been made in the inquiry and because those complaints were made publicly, I honestly believe that the report on the inquiry should be made public to let us know whether a compromise was made, which I think was imperative, and also whether justice was done in fact as was requested. Therefore, can the parliamentary secretary tell us at least that the report will be made public?
Oral Questions


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the question the hon. member put to me two months ago, may I remind him that the Gascon report had not yet been published at the time.


Roch La Salle: I know that report, that is for sure!


Charles Lapointe: As for the supplementary he just put to me, Mr. Speaker, 1 cannot promise to table the report.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, I will direct my question to the parliamentary secretary, if 1 might have his attention.
The Canadian Wheat Board has found it necessary to put out tenders for 500 to 2,000 hopper cars because the Canadian government has not supplied the necessary number. Would the parliamentary secretary indicate whether any further tenders are to be put out by the Canadian Wheat Board for hopper cars?


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, my responsibilities as parliamentary secretary of transport do not cover the Canadian Wheat Board. However, I will take the hon. member's question as notice and as soon as he is back the minister will be able to give an answer.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, trusting that someone on the other side is responsible at this moment for the Canadian Wheat Board, I will direct my question to whoever that may be. Would that person undertake to let the House know if there is any limit in the statute to the number of cars which can be ordered by the Canadian Wheat Board? The money comes from farmers' pockets and it has been stated that some
20,000	new cars are needed. Is there any limit to the number the Canadian Wheat Board can order?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: -hon. members opposite sound like turkeys flapping their wings. I will take the hon. member's question into consideration and report back. He is asking for an interpretation of the law and I would have to talk to legal officials.

December 14, 1978
Oral Questions INDUSTRY


DEFICIT IN AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS TRADE WITH UNITED STATES
Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and it is with respect to automotive products trade with the United States.
It was announced recently that the deficit for the first nine months of this year was down by over 40 per cent compared with the first nine months of last year. Can the minister identify the main reasons for that great improvement, and can those same factors be applied successfully to other areas such as trade in auto parts and trade in automotive products with other countries?


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In the first nine months of this year we had a greatly improved trade balance in auto parts and in automobiles with the United States. Basically, truck sales were up some 40 per cent and car sales were also up, but we still show a significant deficit in auto parts.
With the Reisman report now before the cabinet, we will be studying in particular what we can do to enhance the automotive parts industry in Canada and to improve our balance in part sales to the United States.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his capacity as minister responsible to the House and to the Canadian people for the Canadian side in the Canada-U.S. negotiations on maritime boundaries.
In light of the rather unsatisfactory answer provided yesterday to my colleague, the hon. member for South Shore, as reported at page 2079 of Hansard, to the effect that there was lack of clarity in the situation on the west coast in this matter, would the minister give an undertaking to make a statement on motions or find some other equally satisfactory method of informing the House and the Canadian people as to the situation on the west coast in terms of the fishing boundary negotiations?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to express my thanks to the hon. member for giving me notice and having a short consultation on this matter so that, indeed, I can try to eliminate some of the lack of clarity which surrounds this issue.
As of today, there is a representative of the Canadian negotiating team on the west coast discussing the various issues with representatives of the fishermen, the provincial

government and all the other parties concerned. As the hon. member knows, much will depend upon what kind of agreement is achieved among them as to the position which Canada should put forward. So far as I can see, that is as far as I can reasonably be expected to go at this time.
I will be more than pleased, either on motions or in some other way-I will do it in consultation with hon. members, if they so desire-to indicate progress, or the lack of it, or whatever develops as soon as I think there would be some useful purpose served by that decision.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
RIGHT TO DRAW ANNUITIES ON RRSPs
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Is he aware that a provision in the budget bill of April, 1978, prohibits persons under 60 years of age who are disabled or otherwise physically unable to support their families from drawing an annuity from the registered retirement savings programs to which they might have contributed for several years?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking me for an opinion on a piece of legislation which has been voted upon by the House of Commons. However, we will have occasion to debate that aspect of the budget because there will be some changes to the RRSPs when the budget bill is before the House.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Rob Parker (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. At a committee meeting some weeks ago, the minister justified his refusal to make public project assessments under the Outreach program by saying there may be situations where, in the evaluation of a project, it might be found that someone in charge of it is a hopeless alcoholic, is a drug addict or has some kind of problem at home. That has left some 80 or 90 people responsible for administering those projects under something of a cloud.
I should like to ask the minister if indeed he found that in any specific cases and, if he did not, would he make it clear? If he did find it, could he narrow it down a little so that all these people are not left with the broad suggestion that some of them might be alcoholics or drug addicts?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is really reaching today, and I am surprised. I indicated this as an instance. There might be personal information on individuals which they would not like to be made public in the evaluation process. I was
December 14, 1978

commenting on the fact that, in the interest of protecting their civil liberties and their personal rights, it might not be appropriate to make public a particular report.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce: it concerns the announcement that the publicly-owned Panco Poultry Limited in British Columbia has recently been purchased by Cargill Grain Company, one of the largest multinational grain firms in the world.
Can the minister tell us, first of all, whether this transaction has been reviewed or is under review by the Foreign Investment Review Agency, and whether it will receive the government stamp of approval?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I can look into the matter to see whether or not it is before the Foreign Investment Review Agency, but certainly 1 cannot say whether or not it will receive the government stamp of approval because it has to go through the process of being reviewed by the agency on whose recommendation the government acts.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I wonder if the minister can advise us whether good corporate citizenship is one of the criteria of the Foreign Investment Review Agency and, if such is the case, whether the agency will take into account the fact that the Cargill Grain Company has committed at least 105 violations of the Wheat Board's regulations and is not a particularly good corporate citizen in this country. Will that matter be considered by the agency?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Hundreds of thousands of farmers have violated one regulation or another of the Canadian Wheat Board, at one time or another, but in my opinion they are still good Canadian citizens.
In assuring the hon. member, let me point out to him that what the Foreign Investment Review Agency looks for is significant benefit to Canada and I am sure that in this case, as in many others, the agency will try to ascertain how much benefit Canada can derive from this proposal and whether or not significant benefits will be gained from this takeover, if the takeover takes place.


LOTO CANADA
Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport.
Oral Questions
About an hour ago I said to a colleague of mine that I hoped he was having a Loto fund, and the minister turned around and said to me-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member have a question?


Cecil Morris Smith: I have a question for the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. The minister said to me that if I was good, 1 would be getting it in Churchill. I should like the minister to clarify that statement, because if you do not get it very often, you want to know what you are going to get.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Iona Campagnolo: Privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Iona Campagnolo: Privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Selkirk.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Solicitor General I will direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. It has to do with the firearms amnesty program. I wonder if the Acting Prime Minister could tell the House whether that program has been extended.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General is not in the House, but his parliamentary secretary is here.


Mr. Roger Young (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, may 1 say, on behalf of the minister, that I am happy to have this opportunity to clarify the nature of what has been referred to as an extension of the amnesty period.
There have been some misleading generalizations in press reports which have created the impression that the amnesty was to remain in effect indefinitely. In fact, what the minister said, and what his November 30 press release said, was that the full penalties of the law were once again in force, but that he was encouraging police officials across the country to co-operate with any person who wished to come forward voluntarily to legalize their possession of firearms.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: My question is for the parliamentary secretary. Would he ask the Solicitor General to make that clear to the attorneys general of Canada, because the telegram received by a Mr. Roy Cooper, chief provincial firearms officer of the attorney general's office of Manitoba, from the

December 14, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Lavoie
Solicitor General of Canada was very ambiguous and the attorney general of Manitoba is today waiting for clarification. Therefore, would the parliamentary secretary assure the House that a clarification will be sent out today, at least to the attorney general of Manitoba?


Roger Carl Young: I will be very happy to draw that to the minister's attention. I think the effect of the discussions which took place was that we were hoping that police officials and provincial officials across the country would co-operate in the same manner as they did while the amnesty program was in total effect, for those people who still voluntarily wish to come forward and surrender or legalize any firearms they have.

[ Translation]


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to take the time of the House for a second day in a row on a matter of privilege of which I gave you notice. My privilege is in two parts, first it concerns a parliamentary committee which is sitting right now and, second, a very short remark on the question 1 put yesterday to the Chair as regards question period.
1 thought, following the suggestion 1 had made to the Chair, that I would at least obtain an answer on whether or not it is possible to hold a meeting to try and correct this situation. Also, Mr. Speaker, yesterday 1 attended a parliamentary committee and I believe that as member of this parliament, I have the right to speak at a parliamentary commission.
1 understand that there are rules to follow. But when we have a right to 11 members on a parliamentary committee and that I am the eleventh, if the twelfth is not there it is not my fault. I think 1 have the right to sit and speak. When we are considering legislation like Bill C-14 which concerns all Canadians and particularly people in my constituency, I think I have the right to speak, and I would wish that once for all this House can correct that situation because otherwise, Mr. Speaker, this parliamentary institution will be threatened. That is what will happen if an elected representative of the people does not have the right to speak, because they cannot be here themselves to do so. They have elected us and I think we have the right to speak in this House and in committees.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member raises a question about the identification or the granting of an opportunity during question period for persons to participate in the question period. Of course, that is never a question of privilege; it is a matter which lies within the sole discretion of the Chair. That is the way it must remain. It is not a question of privilege and cannot be under any circumstances.

The second matter raised by the hon. member has to do solely with procedure within the standing committee, which is not within my jurisdiction to deal with in any manner as long as the matter is before the committee. If any hon. member at any time has any grievance to raise about his rights being affected adversely in any way by any decisions or procedures of the committee, they must be resolved in that committee. The committees have the power to set their own rules in any way they wish. If there is a grievance, it may come before this House at the time the committee reports to the House; or if the matter is raised in the standing committee and in itself as a grievance becomes part of a report when it is reported to the House, then the House can take it into account. But as long as the proceedings remain in the committee, the decisions to govern its own procedures remain the business of the committee and not the business of the Chair.


MR. CROSBIE-REQUEST THAT ACTING MINISTER OF TRANSPORT BE PERMITTED TO ANSWER QUESTION
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege. During the question period, I addressed a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) in his capacity as Acting Minister of Transport, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) not being here today. It is a matter of great importance in Newfoundland. It has to do with the Newfoundland railway and a statement of policy which was contained in a telex sent by the Secretary of State for External Affairs himself last Tuesday to the railway labour unions in Newfoundland.
Within the last three or four weeks, a question was addressed by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) to the Secretary of State for External Affairs as Acting Minister of Transport, the minister not being there. Your Honour permitted the Secretary of State for External Affairs to answer that question having to do with the railway in Newfoundland. Then the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lapointe) answered it.
The thing is: I was trying to question the minister on a statement he himself made in a telex, where he said that the Minister of Transport has indicated he is prepared to recommend to government the system of direct payment to Canadian National Railways to cover clearly identifiable losses sustained by CN in carrying out the special responsibilities assigned to it by government in order to maintain effective rail service in Newfoundland and offset the serious dislocations that will occur, to see if that is now official government policy.
Today six employees in the accounting department in St. John's were laid off effective December 31, one of them with 36 years' service. This is a fine Christmas present for the CN to give six of their long service employees, particularly in view of the statement of the Minister of Transport and the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
My grievance is: the minister is the acting minister but he was not permitted to answer. As this is an urgent matter,
December 14, 1978

perhaps if he could answer now, that would solve my question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure it would solve the question of privilege of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Cros-bie), but it would raise a great many more difficult problems for me. First of all, the hon. member wants a minister who was not evidently serving in an acting capacity today to be permitted to answer that question; and second, now he would like him to answer the question after the question period is over. 1 would dearly love to grant that to the hon. member for St. John's West on this very important subject. The only trouble is that I do not know how I would stop the call of other members every day after three o'clock. There is simply no procedural way in which we can pursue the matter at this time.


LOTO CANADA
Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, in response to the remark made by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith), 1 simply think that the record should be clear on this issue. I have heard numerous rather humorous remarks concerning Loto Canada. As a fellow northerner of the hon. member for Churchill, 1 am very well aware of the seeming incapacity of the provinces to be able to equalize the advantages and opportunities for Canadians within their boundaries. It is my hope following our present obligations that in 1980, when we have a new Loto Canada program, we will be able to advantage those sections of the country which are not now advantaged by their own governments.
In regard to the sexism of his remarks, and to bring it to a more germane issue-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Iona Campagnolo: -I wish to place a motion. Simply the motion is that the hon. member for Churchill should consult with his wife on whether or not he will have an answer to that question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Belle-chasse (Mr. Lambert).


Cecil Morris Smith: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith) was permitted one salvo which did not resemble a question in the question period. The minister begged a reply, which is not a question of privilege. I think they are even.
Business of the House


PRIVILEGE
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, that is where we see the importance of having someone to preside over our debate and to ensure order. I would like to rise on a question of privilege concerning a very important issue which 1 raised during question period, namely the establishment of a national marketing board. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important matter and as a representative of a large percentage of poultry producers, I would like to voice very sincerely the great desire among poultry producers in Quebec and indeed throughout Canada for the creation, in the very near future, of this marketing board.
I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) for his attention as we are dealing here with a crucial matter. The issue has been brought to the cabinet's attention and an order in council should be issued in the forseeable future. But in view of the importance of this matter, I would like to ask the minister, on behalf of all producers, to exert pressure on his cabinet colleagues so that an order can be issued as soon as possible to prevent a deterioration of the market which would benefit those who are monopolizing the marketing of this important foodstuff. Since the minister is responsible for food in our country and must ensure that consumers can avail themselves of the best priced and best quality foods, I would like to ask him, and cabinet also, to examine this matter very seriously and make a decision as soon as possible. I am certain that the Minister of Agriculture understands my concern and that is why I considered that this was a very important question of privilege, which calls for a decision.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) realizes, I am sure, that the situation here is the same as in the case of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). We absolutely cannot continue the oral question period beyond three o'clock.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the deputy government House leader whether he can tell us the intention of the government for the balance of today, tomorrow and into next week in respect of government business?


Mr. Cafik:: Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of the government to continue today with the Prime Minister's motion

December 14, 1978
Reference to Committee
dealing with the board of economic development, to be continued into tomorrow. Following that it would be our intention to call Bill S-5, dealing with the business corporations act, followed by the non-profit corporations act, which is Bill S-4, followed by Bill C-28, which deals with the Northwest Territories Act; and following that we would call Bill C-9.


An hon. Member:: It's going to be a long day.


Norman Augustine Cafik: It would be the intention, as previously indicated, that the UIC bill, which is now being reported back from the committee, Bill C-14, be called on Monday.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration-Mr. Savard.
[Editor's note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: for leave to introduce Bill C-448, to amend the Criminal Code (commercial use of lie detectors).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill briefly is to outlaw the use of lie detectors in commercial enterprises. The reason this bill needs to be introduced is that a number of commercial operations in Canada continue to require their employees to take lie detector tests. This is a severe invasion of their civil liberties and it is time the law was changed in order that these devices be severely restricted.


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

Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I move:

That the minutes of proceedings and the evidence adduced therein of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs respecting the supplementary estimates (A), 1977-1978, relating to the Solicitor General be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs; and
That the committee be authorized to make any such evidence adduced in camera available to the commission of inquiry concerning certain activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police under such terms and conditions as may be established by the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion by the hon. member for Ontario. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, in answer to your question as to whether it is the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion, the answer from this side is yes. There have been some discussions in respect of the matter and we are prepared to have the motion go now.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 45, 394, 482 and 493.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
[ Text]


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	For the fiscal year 1976-77, what contracts for professional services were let for studies, surveys and analyses into (a) present or future policies, programmes or information analysis and their efficiency and effectiveness (b) the examination of the administration or internal operation of the Department of Fisheries?
2.	How much was committed on each contract and to whom?


Mr. Jack Pearsall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: In so far as fisheries and oceans is concerned:
I. (a) J.C. Barclay:	$20,000
Study of post benefit-Cost analysis of selected salmonid enhancement projects.
Underwood McLellan and Associates:	$79,950
Study under the salmon enhancement program to assess the competitiveness and efficiency of the B.C. salmon processing industry.
December 14, 1978

Underwood McLellan and Associates $11,500 Limited:
Study of supply and demand characteristics for B.C. salmon as part of the economic assessment of the salmonid enhancement program.
Edwin, Reid and Associates Limited:	$33,319
Study of the socioeconomic impact of the salmonid enhancement program on native people in remote communities along the
B.	C. coasts.
Laval University, Quebec:	$60,303
Biological and ecological study of eel, St.
Lawrence River basin.
Grand Council of the Crees, Val d'Or:	$54,870
Selective sampling of fish in northwestern Quebec to analyse mercury levels.
Various Provincial Departments, Quebec:	$56,500
Cost sharing industrial development to encourage fishing expansion in Quebec.
McGill University, Montreal:	$20,000
Study of algae in Magdalen Islands lagoons.
Fisheries and Marine Associates Limited:	$30,000
Consultation services on the Atlantic coast herring industry program and on the Bay of Fundy herring industry.
Systemhouse:	$	2,000
Analysis of Halifax system 2000 landings project.
(b) P.A. Lapp Limited:	$	9,350
Alternative proposals study for the development of an Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Information Centre.
C.	F. Wilson and Associates:	$33,500
Word processing and related office systems
study.
Manex Inc., Quebec:	$	8,215
To define structure and positions to reorganize the Quebec region, fisheries branch.
2. See 1(a) and (b) above.


Mr. Herbert: In each of the past five years, what amount was paid to the Government of Quebec under the Canada Student Loans Act?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Canada Students Loans Program Alternative Payments to Quebec
$ (Thousands) 9,036 10,698
Economic Development
$ (Thousands)
1975-	1976	12,7081976-	1977	13,1901977-	1978	13,559


Mr. McKinnon: What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Victoria who performed services for the Canadian Broadcasting Commission during 1977 and, in each case, what was the total amount paid?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: None.


McKinnon: What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Victoria who performed services for the Canada Council during 1977 and, in each case, what was the total amount paid?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: None.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, December 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Trudeau:
That the following address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General of Canada:
To His Excellency the Right Honourable Jules Leger, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada.
May it please Your Excellency:
The House of Commons, having considered the proposed text of the order in council laid upon the table of the House on December 4, 1978, in relation to the establishment of a Ministry of State for Economic Development, prays that the making of the said order in council be approved.
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, the problem we are dealing with today in setting up a new ministry of state to provide authority for one minister to speak on behalf of the co-ordinated policies of the government is not a new problem to any government in the world. I should think it is safe to say that since the war in every country of the
1973-	1974
1974-	1975

December 14, 1978
Economic Development
world that has some form of representative government, and that includes communist states, there has been a battle for power between those who have elected positions of power, such as the communist power in Russia or in China, and the elected members of parliament and the cabinet as in countries of the west.
I had the privilege of discussing this matter with the senior members of the People's Republic of China in 1964. It is not a new problem there. They were worried in their new government how to control the tremendous bureaucracy which had to be developed to do all the things the government has had to do involving the business of the country.
Likewise I have had discussions with senior members of the Russian hierarchy. As I remember those conversations, this resulted in the cultural revolution in China in 1966-67 where high school students and university students were freed from school to go out and attack their teachers and civil servants, with the hope that by yelling at them they might get across the message that they were supposed to be carrying out the policies of the people and not policies to perpetuate themselves.
This problem relating to the control of bureaucracy has been in existence here in Canada as well. Those of us who were here from 1962 to 1968 will remember the technique used by the Pearson administration. That administration saw this problem as one of political science. When there was a problem that could not be met, that administration created a new department. This resulted, I think it is fair to state, in a weakening of some of the in line or regular departments, such as the Department of Agriculture, with various functions belonging to the regular departments being put into these separate portfolios.
Nothing new came from this practice except a continual flow of ministers. I suppose if you looked at the length of time served by ministers of various portfolios under both the Pearson and the present administration, you would find that never before in the history of Canada were ministers able to serve for such a short period of time.
I point that out for a reason. It was very evident in the days of the Pearson administration that there had to be some control by elected representatives over those who were fully paid representatives, civil servants if you like, in this country. The reason for this can be found in previous history. It actually goes back to the 1930s following which there was a reform of the civil service. The Bennett administration brought in a top notch man with instructions to build the best civil service possible in Canada. Mr. Clark was recruited to build that civil service. There is a statue here in Ottawa, quite properly, as a result of that service. He brought together in the 1930s and into the war period some of the best minds from universities and businesses across the land, which enabled Canada to go through the war without even going into high gear. We went through the war in a cruising posture because of the efficiency of the direction of the civil servants here in Ottawa. It was a high level mark in the running of a government by paid employees of the Crown.

As time went on and ministers became accustomed to accepting directions and ideas from the civil service, we have this management concept of government taking hold. The ministers in the latter period of the Mackenzie King government became accustomed to taking orders which came up from their departments, presenting them to cabinet and having Mr. Howe look at them and nod his acceptance. In the St. Laurent period the same thing occurred even more smoothly. He was quite content to hand the details of any policy over to the civil servants who would propose their ideas to their ministers, and if Mr. Howe nodded his head then it went through.
This was the situation when a new government was elected in 1957. Clearly this new government had different policy points of view which were tied around the word "development". Historically, this was the traditional position of the Conservative party, and we had this program of development and all its concomitant policies ready to go. However, these policies had not originated in the traditional civil service milieu of officials who had been accustomed to administering the country purely as a managerial function.
This clash between the elected representatives and the appointed representatives of the people came to a head in what is now known as the Coyne episode. When the budget was read in 1959, cabinet ministers were surprised to find that the policies enunciated in it were the opposite to what the cabinet wanted to do. There was a discussion with the people who devised this policy which went on through the winter of 1959 into the summer of 1960. As a result of those discussions, Mr. Coyne refused to accept the government's expansionary policies, the government would not accept his restrictive policies, and we had to announce our intention in parliament to have him dismissed. This was probably the first clash in the history of the western world between the elected representatives and the senior mandarins of the civil service regarding their respective ideals.
This decision on the part of the Diefenbaker administration probably cost them the reins of government because a feeling went through the establishment of the civil service, business, university and all the opinion leaders across this country which was expressed in this way: "How can this country be run by a group of prairie cowboys?" Actually we were right. Our policy at that time set this country moving in an upward direction economically that lasted from 1961 to 1968, the longest period of sustained wealth foundation growth in the history of our country.
Because of that clash and because of the fact that the cause of the civil service was defeated, it was only good sense on the part of the Pearson administration to take a look at this situation to see how they could get control and have some say over the civil service, which had welcomed Mr. Pearson back into the fold as one of the same flock of sheep that had been there for a long time. That was the beginning of this war which has gone on continuously.
December 14, 1978

As I have said, this war is not only going on in Canada. Prime Minister Wilson of Great Britain, during his administration, decided to put four or five top men in charge of groups of portfolios. Hon. members can read all about that disaster in his book, which he wrote after he lost the prime ministership and went into retirement.
Approximately six or seven years ago, in 1971 the Ontario government set up four co-ordinating ministers-as a matter of fact, one of them sits in this House today-who were to co-ordinate the work of several ministries. One needs only to speak to them to learn the results of that attempt to control departments and thereby control civil servants.
In the year 1974-the United States government, faced with the energy crisis, appointed an economic and energy czar in the name of William Simon. He is no longer in that position but he has written a book called "It is Time to Tell the Truth". Every parliamentarian in the world should read that book, which outlines how a brilliant man set up as a czar was beaten by the forces that were in place. All the techniques of delay were used. There were pressure groups, and there was complete subjugation of the leading publishers and the media of the country. They had to fit in with the establishment or they were not in.
This is something I have already mentioned, and it brings me to the present administration. The best way to understand the situation is to let your mind go back ten years when the new emperor took power. The first thing that he did was to realize that the civil service had to be controlled, and as a result the Prime Minister's office was set up. It was a deliberately planned effort to give himself and the people around him enough knowledge and power that they could direct, instead of taking direction from the bottom, from the same tired, old group of people who had made their last serious effort in 1946 to be constructive and innovative. That was the way the government worked from 1968 to 1972 when it had a majority. The Prime Minister's office put up a gallant fight to match the controls of the Privy Council, which has now grown very big and powerful and put up a fight against the tremendous knowledge and strength of the various departments in the civil service.
In 1972 there was a minority government. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) must have blamed his failure to get a majority on the fact that the people believed that the Privy Council Office or his Prime Minister's office was not doing a good job of running the country. In effect, he scuttled for a period of time his Prime Minister's office and began to draw more heavily on the civil service mandarins, particularly those in the Privy Council office.
If one looks at the events over those years and then looks at the events of the last four years when the majority was restored to the government, one gets a good picture why this order in council is before parliament today. This government has been guided for ten years by a two-fold philosophy. Part of it is that by political science techniques, by putting boxes on a diagram and arrows in those boxes, this will solve the problem.
Economic Development
The Prime Minister is on public record as having declared that as his policy.
The Prime Minister thinks that all we need to do to run this government is to appoint knowledgeable people to run it and then he can sit back and take his holidays skin diving or whatever. This is the managerial concept gone mad, the concept of all control going to the Prime Minister through his Privy Council office, to the Prime Minister's office and the civil service, and making an occasional report to cabinet.
I have rushed through this history of the last 16 years. I will simply say that the last episode of August 1 when the Prime Minister came back from Bonn and Morocco and announced a $2 billion restraint program, which ministers will get the civil service to bring in, indicates that the Prime Minister's battle, will simply be continued in a continuing war with the civil service.
If we visualize this as a war for power, we begin to see the picture a little more clearly. Ministers were called back from their holidays and told that the government wanted a $2 billion restraint program rammed through. The ministers did not know what to do. They cannot do anything because they know nothing to start with. When they were asked to do this, they called on their deputy ministers and told them that the Prime Minister wanted them to save a certain number of dollars. The civil service showed who was boss. They picked where the cuts would take place. They decided that the forestry service in Petawawa should go. That does not affect any of their friends in Ottawa. They decided that fisheries research should go and that ARDA should go. All these things were put in place by parliament to help the country make more money and fight inflation. They were wiped out partly as a policy of the civil service to show that it could take these instructions and do whatever it liked and, to use street language, screw the government in the process.
The government is taking an awful beating in terms of public opinion over the so-called restraint program. On some occasions it has even tried to back away from it. The civil service has won the war, although at times they seem to be losing it. I will return to this point and give some details at the end of my remarks.
A word or two should be said about the position of the Progressive Conservative party. I have related the Coyne episode on many occasions because it is crucial to an understanding of what we were trying to do. In our innocence we were trying to demonstrate that we, as elected representatives of the people, having decided on a fundamental policy of expansion, wanted the country to expand and did not intend to let any senior official of the civil service or any department or agency stand in our way. What we did was right and proper but we paid a heavy price for it in the next election in the cities where propaganda works most effectively.
It has to be made clear, as the key point of my remarks, that the only time an elected government ever stood up against the civil service was in that episode in 1959. That is why I stand

December 14, 1978
Economic Development
here today in support of our leader, the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark), whom I expect very shortly to take over the job of prime minister of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I look back over the experiences of the last 30-odd years from the high point of the civil service in 1946 to where it is now, running like a bunch of sheep from one corral to another-we all know the sheep are going to end up in the same place before they are clipped. Then 1 look at this young man who leads the official opposition today. I speak from the experience of having known and seen in action Mackenzie King, St. Laurent, Pearson and the present Prime Minister. I have watched and worked with men like John Bracken, George Drew, John Diefenbaber, Robert Stanfield and our present leader, and I do not think I misstate the case at all when I say unequivocally that, in my judgment, our present leader is the best qualified and best prepared person out of these nine to settle this war between the elected representatives and the civil service. I knew his interests when he worked for various ministers in government as well as in the opposition. I know something of his thinking as to making it possible for the will of the people to be restored in Canada through their elected representatives.
This is not the type of thing that is talked about on every street corner; it is a battle, a war that is going on across the world. In our part of the war, in Canada, I think we have a leader in the Conservative party who has a better chance of understanding how to utilize the tremendous merit and strength of our civil service and move it into the innovative and creative thinking of the Conservative party, thus producing a winning team.
We must be aware of power groups, however, Over the last 30 or 40 years in Canada, business has had tremendous power and since the war labour has developed tremendous power. We have a new rival for power-the media in radio and television, and even the newspaper have a little left. Since 1956, these people no longer report the news. They are an editorial power group who feel their views on what should be done are closer to the truth than the views of the elected representatives in the government or the opposition. They must be accepted as a rival for power. They have long since lost the innocence of reporting the news in a factual manner and, in effect, have moved into the job of the opposition. Their excuse is that we are not strong enough to get our opposition across so they will decide what has to be done.
I sat in this House during this last session and witnessed one or two very good debates. Just two weeks ago there was a debate on the motion of the Social Credit party and every person who spoke in that debate actually spoke on the subject of the motion. That is very unusual. But what was usual about that debate was the fact there was no news of it. A debate on a subject of very great importance apparently is not news.
In the present circumstances the only news that is reported is on the techniques of the government. That is all they study-public relations. Members on that side use every trick

of the trade to get their names in the newspapers, on television and on radio. They crawl around here like hyperactive ants trying to get their faces on television or their voices on radio. A minister is not selected on the basis of what he or she knows or can do, but on the basis of ability to communicate. We end up with a group of communicators running the country. Their skill is what I have just described, namely, getting it out. It does not make any difference whether it says anything sensible-just get it out. Naturally, ambitious young members of parliament think this is the way things are done, but to win the battle I am talking about it is necessary to have someone or a group in any party know something about something.
I suggest that the leader of this party knows that he must have people around him who know something about something and are prepared to put their experience into practice. He knows that he must have around him someone who knows something about resources, because this is a resource country. He also knows that this person must appreciate that we live in an interdependent world. We must know the extent of world resources, the demand for those resources and the supplies available. Above that there must be an industrial strategy based on those resources. Such an industrial strategy must have its priorities and its related policies in finance, trade, manpower and development, and there must be co-ordination of all these factors.
This is the type of thing that I think the young leader of the Conservative party is aware of. He knows that he must have people around him in all fields, not just resources, who know something about their subject. That is the only way to cope with the tremendous efficiency and know-how of the civil service. Everything we want to do must draw on those assets- the know-how, ability and knowledge of the civil service. We must put them to work formulating policy on those subjects in line with the philosophy of the government of the day.
The leader of our party knows the history of the civil service in Ottawa. He has been around here for 20 years and he knows that the civil service has failed to grow in ideas since 1946. That is where the weakness is. He knows that to climb in the civil service one has to belong to a pyramid and keep one's nose at the right angle to make progress. This conformity principle that is so strongly entrenched in the civil service bars from that upward movement many of the ideas and know-how that are there in the civil service. Who knows about this situation better than the present leader of the Conservative party? I know of no other person.
I would like to mention next the public relations propensity of the present government. Ever since the days of Mr. Pearson the governing party has put the emphasis on public relations. There was a problem in 1963 so they brought in a whole team of fellows as evidence that they had strong men around Mr. Pearson who could run this country. They had a picture of a bus which shows all these bright young fellows getting off the bus with briefcases and suitcases with all their plans ready. When the government changed in 1963 they walked back and
December 14, 1978

forth from the East Block to this block, carrying some document or reading a book-not the red book of Mao, but the same thing, and a lot bigger. They were going to give us 60 days of decison. Actually it was an image for the public.
The first decision came in the budget on the fifty-seventh day, and one of the better qualified ministers of that government came a cropper because he forgot one little detail. And that detail? If you bring in an outsider who knows something about what you want to do and have him do it for you, you get rid of him a few days before the budget is announced or you will be under the suggestion of a leak. What we are witnessing here today is the present version of the same technique of the bus with all these young fellows getting off it and pretending they are busy and that they will be able to solve everything in 60 days. All they have is an idea in this order in council. It is that if we could only get the ministers who deal with economic matters to sit down together under one minister who could co-ordinate their efforts and put their views before the cabinet, then we would solve our economic problems.
Let us take a look at this image they are now trying to create. Remember that nothing succeeds so poorly as the blind trying to lead the blind. But this is what we are witnessing. They have even left out the portfolios of agriculture, forestry and fisheries. It never crossed the minds of the political scientists who drafted the order in council that a great part of the wealth of this nation over the next few decades will be coming from the production of food, fibre and energy. Nearly half of the energy for the future needs of Canada will be drawn by farmers. Yet the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is left out. I am not suggesting the Minister of Agriculture could make any contribution, but there may be some people in his department who know what is possible, and biomass is more than just a swear word, it is a very valuable product. I would like to have seen some realization of this by those who drafted the order in council. In image-making one always slips up.
As I look at this matter, I also look at things which have happened before, and I am not alone in my observations. I refer, for example, to the federal-provincial ministry that was set up in 1977. Most members can remember back that far. I have a story from a local paper, the Journal, dated September 27, 1977. The article is written by a man who served as one of the inner group in government; he is now a pundit. The headline reads "Bureaucrats Wins Latest Round Against Top Federal Ministers." What else have I been talking about for the last 20 minutes? Let me read some selections from this article. The first one states:
I am informed ... that the federal-provincial relations office will continue to report directly to the Prime Minister, but will work closely,... very closely, with the Minister of Federal-Provincial Relations.
That is gobbledy-gook. It means they have made a new man the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Reid) but that he and the department are to always report to the Prime Minister. Here is a situation where a federal cabinet minister is appointed who has no civil servants at all. Mr. Economic Development
Gwyn, the author of the article, goes on to describe the political in-fighting. He says:
The interest in the battle of the Dotted Line is that it has matched Ottawa's best political in-fighter against the town's best bureaucratic in-fighter. The significance in the affair is that the bureaucrat won. If you still cling to to that quaint theory that cabinet ministers run the mandarins, now is the time to chuck it.
Let us take another example, that of the committee system.
I have an article from the Citizen dated January 26, 1978. 1 have clippings here over the last 15 years, but I am not going to go into all of them. This article is about a top mandarin. At the particular time he was president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. He gave a speech to the Institute of Public Administration of Canada. His speech was very similar to the remarks made by the deputy minister of finance. This was the statement, and I quote:
-innovation and creativity are being frustrated by committee style policy-making.
This was the belief of Simon Reisman and A1 Johnson, two top mandarins, one in the field of finance and the other in the field of broadcasting, who were complaining about the committee system. Taking the speech in detail, 1 will quote one paragraph:
-the representative committee approach almost inevitably creates a bargaining situation ... Sometimes this means the acceptance of constraints before the advantages of new policy directions can be measured against possible changes in constraints; sometimes it means a succession of compromises which lead to the lowest common policy denominator. Or both.
Here is an example of civil servants complaining about this system and about being so frustrated. One more layer is put in here and another one put in there to make sure there is enough bargaining for all groups, but nothing will be done. That is a translation of that quote, which is a quotation from a speech delivered to the Institute of Public Administration of Canada around January 26, 1978.
I could go on and on. I have talked a little bit about Pearson's new departments every month. I could talk about the Trudeau technique of shifting portfolios. Politically it is simply a device called the "moving target principle of responsibility". If you have ten ministers running across the stage over a ten-year period, it is hard to get a lead on them and catch them. One is out of the damned picture before you can get a lead on the next.
These poor ministers do not get a chance to learn their portfolios. You cannot blame the civil servants for saying they come and they go but we stay on forever. That is how you lose control over the people you are supposed to be directing. That is what the Leader of the Opposition meant yesterday when he called it the downgrading of cabinet. This cabinet has changed so fast that all you can think of is a bunch of assorted Grits in a pot.


An hon. Member:: Like shaking a box of Rice Krispies.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I think I have made my point about this legislation. We are being asked to conclude that by putting in a czar we will end all this confusion, that by doing that their struggle for power will be

December 14, 1978
Economic Development
won. I am simply saying, "Oh, no, you are not." It is simply a part of the struggle and everyone knows it. When it is all over, the headlines will come out "Civil servants still in control".
With regard to the suggestion of a super minister, there is only one thing in the whole statement that intrigues me. I quote from page 2 of the order in council, at the bottom of the page:
His Excellency in Council is further pleased to direct-
(b) He shall advise the Treasury Board on the allocation of financial,
personnel and other resources to federal programs that provide direct support
to the development of economic enterprise in Canada;
The word "shall" sounds impressive. It means you must ask advice. However, the question has to be asked, do you have to take that advice? Does the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) really think he is going to sit at the head of his department and let this group walk all over the top of the department? The Department of Finance will show who is boss. They have been running the show here for 20 years. They do not give up easily. They also run the minister.
This proposal is ridiculous. It was described by somebody as fraudulent. Let us call it what it is, a roaring farce. In this battle to control the power brokers in the civil service, they have more cards in this poker game than you can shake a stick at. Ministers come, ministers go, but they stay on forever. They decide who gives up. They decide who from the outside comes in.
They pretend to this House that by setting up a super ministry to guide economic problems and giving the power to advise, an amendment will be made to that order in council. I know the amendment that will be made, and so does the Minister of Finance. The order in council can be amended in such a way that it will cause a real battle.
This is not even a threat to the Department of Finance and Treasury Board; it reads "shall advise". I remember writing legislation, when I was innocent, giving the power to the National Energy Board to advise the minister. The minister never got any advice from the National Energy Board. I asked why. What I got from the officials in the minister's office, in that case energy, mines and resources, was that those guys did not know enough about it. There was not a single man in the department of energy who knew anything about energy. However, the administrators, the top mandarins, knew what would happen. They did not want advice from the National Energy Board.
We are not the only ones being taken. 1 got taken in a very elementary manner. I thought when you said "shall advise the government" it meant put in the advice and it will be accepted. However, that does not hit the root of the problem. The power has to have some core or centre, either an individual or a small group.
What we have in Ottawa is a small group of six or seven which controls the decisions of the federal government of Canada. They do not see any rivals in this present cabinet. In fact, I suspect they do not think there will be any rivals when

we form the government. They intend to run the show even after the government changes. It will be quite a battle.
In 1959 we had enough guts for a central theme on financial direction to take on the civil service. After 15 long years in opposition, we have ourselves steeled up sufficiently that we will take them on this time as well. The only difference is that this time we will know how to tackle them, matching their cards with higher cards and matching their people with stronger-willed people. The war will be won by the type of person put into the cabinet. We will see whether we can move the power from where it is now in the civil service back to the elected representatives.
We may make mistakes, but at least they will be our mistakes and we will be responsible for them. There is more than one reason why I hang around this place. I fought the battles for a few years. I lost more than I won. I want to live long enough to sit on those treasury benches just to take another crack at them. I want to see whether the elected representatives have enough backbone to win this battle.
I know these people have to learn something, and know something about something, because you are dealing with some of the most able men you could deal with. This problem exists in every country in the world. However, I want to see this job tackled in my country. I do not think it will be done with this legislation. In fact I know it won't. It will not be done with this government. It lost the will to fight before it was born in 1963. I hope that after a sufficient period in opposition, about 15 or 30 years, they will have the opportunity to recruit the type of people who will sit down, study and learn something, and then be able to do something about it when they are elected. By that time we may have the country back in shape.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on the very important motion before the House this afternoon. The creation of the Board of Economic Development Ministers, under the chairmanship of my colleague the new minister of state, is a logical step in the redirection of our economic priorities. The focus of this new body will be on the co-ordination of federal policies and programs directed at economic development. This is an important initiative; it will help considerably in achieving what I have been calling for in the last year, and I support it.
As a former minister of industry, trade and commerce, and as a member representing one of the lagging economic regions of Canada, I am the first to appreciate the significance of this new approach.
As Minister of Finance, I have been very conscious of the limitations of the traditional policies for demand management.
I have explained many times that demand management policies and income policies alone will not by themselves ensure the economic performance which Canadians want. We also need structural policies which will create the right climate for the improved effectiveness and efficiency of the market. This in turn will lead to greater economic growth and to more jobs. This has been one of the key messages of my budget statements, and I think it bears some repeating in today's debate.
December 14, 1978

1 would like to give some examples of what 1 have in mind when I talk about structural policies and programs. I mean those which are directed at labour markets, at the industries that might be affected by the trade negotiations, at regional development, at the problem of government regulation, at the large tourist deficit, at our difficult energy problems.
I have also noted the importance of structural change in two discussion papers on Canada's medium-term prospects. Hon. members will recall that last February I issued a paper entitled "Canada's Economy-Medium-term Projections and Targets". That paper was basically a medium-term analysis of the aggregate components of economic growth. It recognized that broad economic conditions are a vital factor in determining our prospects. But it emphasized that a favourable medium-term economic performance would be a great deal more certain if other supporting policies were implemented which encouraged investment, improved efficiency, or helped the current account of the balance of payments.
In February, it was difficult to tell how rapid the progress would be in integrating policy approaches in these areas, or in developing innovative policies for specific sectoral problems. 1 believe that the creation of the Board of Economic Development Ministers is a major step in answering that question.
As Minister of Finance, 1 will continue to be concerned primarily with the performance of the economy at the aggregate level, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) explained when he announced the creation of the board. But I have repeatedly called for structural policies that support the economic recovery, so I am very pleased that the new President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers (Mr. Andras) will devote himself entirely to putting these policies into place.
It should be clear from the examples of structural issues I have just given that their successful resolution requires the co-ordinated input of several departments of the Government of Canada. 1 look forward to working with the new minister of state on these matters.
I have also noted several times the need for consultation and co-operation with the provinces and with labour and business. As hon. members know, this is a task in which I have been engaged quite extensively, particularly before my recent budget. I will continue to consult widely on what the government's fiscal and monetary stance should be. I think it will be most helpful to have the new minister of state looking after arrangements for ongoing consultation in matters of economic development.
In his statement two weeks ago at the conference of first ministers on the economy, the new minister of state emphasized that few people want rigid five or ten-year economic plans or detailed scenarios for the future. He did not promise a single industrial strategy. I made the same point in my recent budget speech when 1 expressed my scepticism about the search for a single grand industrial strategy in a competitive market system.
Economic Development
I said that we can and must have a set of sensible industrial policies designed to provide a healthy framework for all industries and specific incentives tailored to particular needs. I applaud the setting up of a mechanism which will allow federal ministers to concern themselves with such issues in a co-ordinated and systematic way.
My budget statements have all been centered on, first, general fiscal measures such as the reduction from 12 per cent to 9 per cent in the federal sales tax and the increase from $250 to $500 in the employment expense deduction announced in my November budget. Second, I have included measures designed to improve the climate for business and investment, such as the investment tax credit. Finally, I have taken into account the special needs of our regions and of our industrial sectors. Such measures are illustrated in my recent budget by the different regional rates for the investment tax credit and by tax measures helpful to the mining industry.
The new minister of state himself explained last week that his board would review the economic development proposals submitted by program departments-and I quote:
-through one perspective that has three parts: how proposals support economic growth in Canada's regions, in industry sectors, and in the general economy.
I believe that the new Board of Economic Development Ministers will provide the knitting together of the government's broad, aggregate economic policies with its specific structural policies. This is a very important undertaking, as 1 have been saying since becoming Minister of Finance. This approach to economic development has been evolving, in fact, since the beginning of the anti-inflation program three years ago.
As decontrol is becoming widespread through the economy, it is quite timely to pay particular attention to structural problems and policies. I believe the goals of the motion before the House are the right ones in this government's program of providing more jobs, less inflation and a greater balance in our country's regional economies.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to endorse the resolution before us today for a number of reasons. First, because the establishment of the Board of Economic Development will permit me to achieve what I have wanted to achieve since becoming Minister of Finance. I have explained on a number of occasions that the traditional fiscal and monetary levers will not be sufficient by themselves to set the economy back on a recovery path as all Canadians want.
The problems in key areas such as economics, energy, regional development, government regulation, the labour market, multilateral trade negotiations and their industrial impact, have become too complex to expect that general policies of demand management will solve these problems adequately. My budget speeches have emphasized this theme. In my April budget speech, for example, I spoke of a structural reform challenge and I emphasized the progress we have made in regulating tourism, fishing and agriculture.

December 14, 1978
Economic Development
I also had two important studies published dealing with our medium-term prospects which show clearly that success stems not only from a wise policy of demand management, but also from sustained attention to the specific problems of certain regions and certain sectors of our economy. That is why, my last budget includes, for instance, measures to help the pulp and paper industry and increase, from 10 to 20 per cent, the investment tax credit in the Atlantic provinces and the Gaspe Peninsula.
As Minister of Finance, I must above all be concerned with the over-all fiscal and monetary policies. I can only agree when I see that my colleague, the new President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers (Mr. Andras), will be able to devote all his time to ensuring that the proposals of the various departments in economic development matters are consistent with the fiscal and monetary policies of the government. I am convinced that the new Board of Economic Development Ministers will be of considerable help to the government in increasing the number of jobs for Canadians, reducing inflation, and better distributing our economic activity among the various regions of the country.

In some speeches hon. members have questioned what the relationship between the board and the Department of Finance will be. I do not see any problem. I think it is very important that the different departments be able to work in order to implement the structural changes they want to put forward. Very often one department has to concentrate on the problems it has to face. Such problems relate to energy, industry, trade and commerce, regional development and so forth. Sometimes there has not been enough co-ordination in developing policy and in making sure it is co-ordinated.
I worked with my colleague when he was president of the treasury board. I am used to working with colleagues. It used to be that the minister of finance was the president of the treasury board. Those portfolios were split up. I worked with two different ministers of finance when I was president of the treasury board. As Minister of Finance I worked with my colleague when he was president of the Treasury Board. Some might have said that at times the two organizations held different views. Of course, that is normal, but we always managed to sit down and talk problems over. We always managed to be in agreement when we were together in the cabinet.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) says that bureaucrats do not listen to ministers and that we are always changing ministries. I have been a minister for almost 12 years.


Mr. Paproski:: Good for you.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I know how bureaucrats operate. They give us good advice, and when we do not agree with them, they change their advice. That often happens. I held one portfolio for a long time. I was minister of Indian affairs and northern development for six years, one month, three days and two hours. I felt

no more or less comfortable in that portfolio than I feel now in the Department of Finance after 15 or 16 months. When one has been in cabinet for 12 years, one knows how the government operates.
The hon. member said we should go back. There is a kind of spirit of vindictiveness in that. I do not like that approach. Public servants give us advice, and we can accept it or reject it. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain was a minister who was able to reject advice. Some cannot, but that is not the fault of the system. Perhaps some ministers are not sure of themselves, do not comprehend or whatever. Some come, some go, but a minister who wants to run his department has no problem. However, running a department does not mean a minister must reject all the advice he receives. He must be able to select from the advice he receives.
What we are doing now is making sure that in the line departments there will be a political co-ordination, under the chairmanship of the new president of the board. There will be no problem between him and me. The fiscal, monetary and economic policies will be set by me. If he comes to me to give me good advice, I will welcome it. I need good advice.


An hon. Member:: You sure do.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, and I accept it. I am not at all embarrassed by it. If I have another political minister who can look into any other department and say to the Minister of Finance, "We are having a problem in the development of an industrial strategy; perhaps we could use the tax system", then so much the better. I am not preoccupied by that. I do think the Minister of Finance has retained the same power as he had before. I see no problem. I know the opposition would like to create division within the ranks of the cabinet. If I were them, I would try to do the same thing. But I can assure hon. members that I do not see any problem arising with my colleague. I have worked with him for more than two years since I left the Treasury Board to become Minister of Finance and I have had no problem with him, nor do I expect to have any problem with him in his new job.
I do think that the new ministry will have a better political input in the co-ordination of the policies of the government. He will be consulting me. The responsibility for the budget remains with the Department of Finance, but if he gives me good ideas, I will accept them with pleasure. I am willing to do that.
So 1 do not know why hon. members on the other side are trying to see in this move a downgrading of some departments. What we are doing is to try to make the government apparatus work more efficiently. We want better co-ordination and more political input. That will be good. This will not start fights between ministers. Anyway, we have cabinet meetings all the time where we can disagree. When policies are developed, there will be some more political input, and I welcome it. I am not at all embarrassed by the move. We are just trying to do the right thing because we have said that we want to develop
December 14, 1978

the right policies to make sure that the development of the economy of Canada proceeds properly.
When I was minister of industry, trade and commerce I started this idea of having the 23 different sectors studied. And that is carried on by the present minister. That was a very positive aspect where both the management and the unions work together with the provinces and the federal government in trying to analyse and develop the proper policies for the different sectors. We said that because a policy was successful we must carry on that type of consultation. We decided we want a minister to do that on an almost full-time basis. What is wrong with that? Of course, if you are minister of industry, trade and commerce you have many other responsibilities. You have to travel abroad to stimulate business for Canada. So instead of these consultations being conducted only by burea-crats, they will be conducted by my good colleague, the new minister. I see no problem and I think it will be very good. It will be a step in the right direction.
I do not think any power has been taken away from the Minister of Finance, and if it has been, I do not mind if it is the right thing. I think that the economy and the fiscal and monetary policies of the government will continue to be the responsibility of the Minister of Finance, whoever he is.
The development of new industrial policies and the co-ordination of those policies for the benefit of Canadians can be better handled by the new board because there will be more political input. That should have been the point made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain. Instead of criticizing this new move, if I followed the logic of his argument, I believe he should have been applauding it.


Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to join in this debate, particularly after hearing what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) has had to say about this proposal which the government is bringing forward. I do not think anyone denies that all governments must try to find better ways to organize their approach to the processes which they have to administer, and it is particularly interesting to look at this proposal because it brings to the forefront two important questions which we have to solve. First, how do we get a proper economic policy in this country-which, I presume, is what this board will try to do-and, second, what is the appropriate administrative way to approach the issues of economic policy-making in our country.
Everyone agrees that the complexities of government these days are great. With a $50 billion budget, no one would think a country can be administered in the same way it was administered in the past. Our modern problems are far removed from those of Sir Alexander Mackenzie 100 years ago when he was prime minister and could operate without even a prime minister's office and personally administer the most extensive ministry of the time, that of supply and services.
It is a far cry from the days of the Hon. Edward Blake who, when he was elected to parliament, was the premier of Ontario and represented two federal seats, or even of the days of Mr. Bennett who could serve as his own minister of finance, or even
Economic Development
the days of Mackenzie King when minutes of the cabinet meetings were not even kept. Those indeed are times that are far behind us.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) pointed out in a masterful speech, which I hope hon. members will take time to read with care when it appears in Hansard tomorrow and which I hope the press will read with care, some of the problems of administration as witnessed by a man who has had extensive, significant and important experience in governing. The leader of the NDP has also pointed out the problems that Mr. Wilson had as prime minister of Great Britain when he tried to find ways of administering better.
The inner story of that battle was told, as I suppose it has never been told about any other cabinet, with the publication of the Crossman diaries, which some authorities in Great Britain tried to have suppressed. However, they were published and so now all of us know more about the operation of cabinets than has ever been known by any group outside of cabinet before. What becomes so clear are the difficulties of finding new ways and structures of administering in these complicated times.
We all know the experience of the province of Ontario in the development of its policy ministeries, as well as all the experiments that have taken place in the United States in trying to find better and more efficient ways to administer. I remember when the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) came to office that one of the members of the cabinet at that time told me that it was a refreshing experience to see a new type of administrative operation for the prime minister brought into play, a new system which he thought was going to work more effectively. I am sure that members on the government side in particular will recall the development of an extensive series of cabinet committees: the co-ordinating committees that were evolved at that time and through the last few years, the committee on priority and planning, the committee on legislation and House business, the committee on federal-provincial relations and the Treasury Board-all designed to make the government operate more efficiently. Also there are five subject matter committees: external policy and defence, economic policy, social policy, science and cultural policy, government operations, and then an ad hoc committee.
Approximately a decade later, we know the system has not worked. If the co-ordinating committees of cabinet were working, this order in council would not be before us. If the economic policy committee of the cabinet is operating, why do we need a new tier of bureaucracy in the system? It is well known that the more levels of decision-making a matter has to go through, the more difficult it is to operate efficiently and effectively. The administrative procedures put in place by the government have not worked, and consequently the government is looking for something new.
This debate cannot be as highly politically partisan as some debates. All of us must be concerned about finding a structure
2132

December 14, 1978
Economic Development
of government which will deliver service efficiently and effectively to Canadian taxpayers. I do not think anyone would suggest that our potential in terms of the resources and people in the country has been fulfilled. I am sure all of us deplore this, even the Minister of Finance and the President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers (Mr. Andras). Obviously we must find a way to make economic policy work effectively.
One must ask oneself if this new board is the correct way to do it. One must look at the establishment of this board with great care, concern and considerable scepticism. The tradition of this country, dating back to the Rowell-Sirois commission when there was a centralization of authority and economic policy-making, has been that the Department of Finance establishes the economic policy of the nation. We have had the benefit of some very strong ministers of finance and deputy ministers of finance in our history. The practice has developed that the Minister of Finance and his deputy minister are the senior officials in the development of policy as far as economic affairs in the country are concerned. For the present Minister of Finance to suggest that the creation of this board will not result in a lessening of power within the Department of Finance is ludicrous. If one compares the traditional operation of the Department of Finance, one will discover that the very things the new board will attempt to do are matters which have been looked after by the Minister of Finance and his department for the last 25 years, with mixed degrees of success.
With respect, the decline in the existence of strong ministers in the cabinet of Canada came about with the co-ordinating operations in cabinet. A strong minister does not want to develop a policy which must be sold repeatedly to a variety of other ministers. The exodus of strong ministers from the government has been a product of the existing system. Also the change in management philosophy with respect to deputy ministers has been a factor in many strong deputy ministers leaving the government. The administrative philosophy relating to deputy ministers now is that one must know how to manage in order to be a good deputy minister. I agree with that. But another element of that administrative philosophy is that one does not have to know much about the substantive nature of the material one is administering. That is a mistake. Will we receive the required results if a deputy minister is deputy minister of department X on Monday, department Y on Tuesday, and department W on Thursday? Is it a good idea to move a deputy around because he knows how to manage but has no knowledge of what he is supposed to manage? We require the fixing of responsibility and authority, with strong people within strong departments, if we are to receive the type of policy the country requires.
I should like to refer to page 2093 of Hansard dated December 13, 1978, where the Prime Minister gives the reasons for the establishment of the board. He said that the board will take-
-action to influence the development of industries and regional economies-

I thought that was the responsibility of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Fessard). Surely it must be. The Prime Minister continued:
-action to integrate programs and activities providing direct support to industry-
Surely that is the responsibility of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. He continued:
-to increase effectiveness and minimize red tape-
A minister has been appointed to minimize red tape. He continued:
-action to foster co-operative relationships with respect to industrial development-
Surely that is the responsibility of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. He continued:
-direct support to industry and economic development in Canada, including government procurement policy-
Is that not the responsibility of the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. De Bane)? On and on it goes. My point is a very important one. In order to arrive at good policy, we do not require another board. We require a redefinition of the line responsibilities of various departments of government.
The establishment of the board indicates that there has been a confusion in the operations of different departments. The confusion is such that they are constantly overlapping each other, with each department doing the same things over and over again. No one knows what he is supposed to do. There is no fixing of responsibility or authority.
If the government is serious about restraint and streamlining its operations, another board should not have been created. The government should have asked itself why it required another board. If the government found out that it was because of the overlapping, then it should get rid of that overlapping.
Another function of the bureau is to bring together economic policies of the government. What economic policies? Surely the departments have line functions to perform. The government knows what the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion are supposed to do within the framework established by the Department of Finance. If there is so much overlapping that the departments do not know what they are supposed to do and they have to be co-ordinated, the responsibilities of departments should be redefined in order to eliminate the overlapping so that they can operate more effectively.
The comments of the Minister of Finance were very interesting, yet at the same time they were quite shocking. He said that the board will work well because he has been around for a number of years and he gets along with the minister who will be his super minister. Surely the Government of Canada is not proposing the creation of a new bureaucracy and saying that it will work because the ministers are old friends. I cannot think of a less reasonable explanation for the development of the board. One must put forth management proposals or administrative changes on the basis that they will work effectively and last. Neither of those ministers may be there very long. The
December 14, 1978

probability is that they will not. To defend the establishment of the board on the ground that we should not worry because the ministers get along is just preposterous.
Indeed, the whole speech of the Minister of Finance on the serious issue of how we should make economic policy in the nation is a travesty, one not worthy of being recorded in the Journals of the House of Commons. 1 thought this was a serious proposal of government, but I have to confess after hearing the Minister of Finance, and it is his department that is the most seriously affected by this proposal, that there cannot have been serious consideration given to the plan.
I can tell you one thing; I would be willing to wager a considerable sum of money that if the Hon. John Turner was still the minister of finance for Canada this proposal would never have been made, because he would not permit a downgrading of his department. If it was suggested, it would not be defended on the ground that "everybody can get along with me so it is okay." Fortunately, the Hon. John Turner is not here, and I say "fortunately" meaning fortunate for the country as a whole because of what happened under his administration.


Mr. Andras:: You very nearly slipped there.


James McPhail Gillies: The sort of defence put up by the Minister of Finance for the abdication of the responsibilities of his department is, indeed, something less than one would have expected. He argues that this is the way in which his sector policies are to be co-ordinated. If that is so, one has to worry a great deal about the future of the nation.
He also makes the point that the change does not matter. If I were the incoming minister of this new board I would be very worried about a Minister of Finance who says it really does not matter that we have this new board because "we meet in cabinet all the time anyway." If ever there was a statement suggesting that we do not need this board and that the taxpayers of Canada should not be asked to pay for it, that is it. If they meet in cabinet all the time anyway in a co-ordinating committee, why do they need a new bureau? Why do we have to put another layer of bureaucracy of this sort on top of the existing bureaucracy? The Minister of Finance says they all get along together in the government and it doesn't make any difference. He just laughs it off, saying "we are old friends, charge the taxpayers, it is okay with me. We meet anyway." That shows the absolute ludicrousness of the proposal being put before us.
What we really need, and need badly, is a total redefining of the line responsibilities of the departments so there is no such overlapping of functions and responsibilities. If the departments knew what they were supposed to do and knew the limits of their responsibilities, we would not need this new bureaucracy the government is creating. Indeed, what an opportunity this government has lost. It has talked of the need for restraint. If the government thought there was too much overlapping, surely there was a golden opportunity for restraint by redefining the responsibilities of departments and
Economic Development
getting rid of the confusion, rather than bringing in a board designed to co-ordinate the confusion.
Having said that, there is no question that we do need a better way of formulating economic policy in this nation. The answer clearly is not found in this sort of board, because there is just going to be more of the same input in the same way.
If we are to get the economic policy the country ought to have we have to start back in parliament. We have to start back in the standing committee on finance. We have argued as strenuously as we can that that standing committee, as is the case in almost every legislative assembly in the world, ought to get appropriate pre-budget papers prepared by the government. That committee should be able to call the most able and best witnesses from across the country. No one thinks that economic policy-making in this country is easy, and we should get all the best minds together providing input before the budget, that principal document of economic policy-making, is brought down. This committee should have some staff to assist it in its work.
It is interesting to note that the executive vice-president of the Bank of Nova Scotia made a speech two days ago, I think, suggesting that the Economic Council of Canada has outlived its function and that the staff of that council should be attached to the standing committee on finance. In that way we would have a properly staffed forum in this country in which could be brought forward the best ideas of the best economists, the best industrialists, the best manufacturers, mining people and so on. This would help not just the government, but the people of Canada as well, to get better economic policy-making than we have had in the past.
To propose that the government meets the situation by establishing a new sort of board is absolutely ludicrous. We need more openness in the making of economic policy in the country. We have the most closed economic policy-making process of any democracy in the world. We have no forecasts about what is to happen. If you were a citizen of the United States, today you would know, because the government has said, that its goal is to reduce the federal deficit in that country to $30 billion by 1981 or 1982. No one has any idea what the goal of this government is in respect to reducing the federal deficit. To have a similar proportionate deficit in this country we would need to have a deficit of $3 billion by 1981 or by 1982.
We have a strange situation here. Everyone who is considering economic policy-making and the situation that now exists is calling for reduced deficits, yet ours is going up. We have a billion dollar a month deficit. It is a deficit that is running, depending on which measure you use, almost four times higher proportionately as the deficit of the United States. This is a critical situation.
We do not need a bureau or a board made up of existing cabinet ministers, advised by the same people, to co-ordinate policy. If we are to get to the root of our problems what we really need is some place in the Government of Canada where there is someone who says what the objectives of economic policy-making are. For example, we should have someone
80067-63)4

December 14, 1978
Economic Development
declare that it is an objective of policy to reduce the size of the federal deficit. We need a place where economic policy is set in a definite way. Until that is done I am not sure we will be able to do what we ought to do in this country.
No one can object to the government trying to find a way to make better economic policy. We have had slow rates of economic growth, high levels of unemployment, increasing regional disparity of income and a devastating situation in respect of our balance of payments, to which there does not seem to be any solutions put forward by the government either for the medium or the long term.
We have a squandering of our resources, and financial controls that do not seem to have worked. We have a financial system that seems almost out of control, according to the Auditor General. We have enormous problems. One would think the government would try to find some new way of dealing with these things rather than through the creation of a new bureaucratic board. Anyone who thinks that such a board will do anything to improve the creation of economic policy in this country is deluding himself.
With all the problems before us, with the need for the development of economic policy-making, with the need for restraint and with the need for redefining the functions of various departments, how sad it is that this government has once again missed an opportunity, and once again has brought in something which has been well described as cosmetic and which will achieve nothing. We in this party believe it is not going to work. We hope that the government will not go ahead with a proposal which will do no good. It will probably cause harm by slowing down the government process and costing money. It would be better if they turned their attention to the real problem, namely: "How do we design better economic policy for this country?"


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased to rise and take part in this debate on a resolution introduced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) establishing a Ministry of State for Economic Development. It is an appropriate opportunity, when we take into account the discussions held inside and outside the House over the past two years, more especially since the government paused to analyse the economic conditions two years ago. During a day spent together, the members of the cabinet discussed a new direction to be given to government action as a result of the failure experienced by the implementation of so-called traditional policies to solve unemployment, inflation or lack of investment in some sectors of our Canadian industry, more especially as far as some resources are concerned. As a result of the review of some failures following honest attempts and discussions, recommendations and suggestions made to us, after having implemented and experimented with all these policies, we were still facing, as Canadians and

as a government, a rate of unemployment and a rate of inflation which were clearly too high.
We therefore had to consider our tools for action, that is the existing laws, in order to face and deal with a situation which appeared to be of increasing complexity. That is why we had during the last two years a whole series of federal-provincial meetings in Ottawa as well as in the provincial capitals during which the federal government, together with the various provincial governments, analysed each sector of the country's economy in order to identify their weak spots, but also to come to an agreement concerning the ways to solve the problems. Mr. Speaker, after two years of concerted effort and consultation with and analyses, recommendations and suggestions from all parties concerned, we found it was necessary that the Canadian government established a mechanism for the purpose of dealing with all these recommendations from the private sector, from the labour sector and from the provincial governments.
Mr. Speaker, after some three years carrying out my duties as Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, I had come to realize that it was necessary to better co-ordinate the efforts both at the federal and provincial levels, if we really meant to reach our objective of better regional equality.
The reason I am saying this, Mr. Speaker, is to better situate myself within this debate. We heard yesterday the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) make a somewhat negative speech. We were not at all surprised, for we have come to expect from him speeches like this, and for some 30 or 40 minutes yesterday, I listened to him as he criticized us and I read again his remarks this morning. I have been unable to discover one single positive remark. I shall return in a little while to the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition, for I should like to deal now with the speech made by the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). On a number of occasions, I was very tempted to applaud his remarks, and I could not help in fact applauding when he resumed his seat. The hon. member told us what he really thought had to be done by the government and I tend to believe that the ideas put yesterday afternoon by the Leader of the New Democratic Party are largely similar to those we are developing and implementing. However, it is not an easy task. That will not be achieved right away. I would even go further, Mr. Speaker. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced some weeks ago the creation of an economic development board, I was most happy. Indeed, I had written to him some months ago to inform him of my views, my orientations, how I felt it was possible to better co-ordinate our economic decision-making policy. At that time I meant to inform him of my approach and appreciation of the situation. I wanted him to know that- although I was in charge of an economic portfolio having a specific task to achieve-I was aware of the fact that I could not take up such a challenge alone-although I could count on my department, its publics servants and a budget of half a

- :v)
'pcr;

billion dollars-unless the government and other departments would make a similar joint arrangement.
We could not meet this objective, Mr. Speaker, while ignoring the other economic problems of our country and the need to develop other sectors in other areas of Canada. I cannot believe that we will lessen economic disparities by curbing development in other regions. Some people do believe that we should slow down development in some areas to allow others to catch up. I am not quite prepared to agree with this theory, Mr. Speaker.
1 think we must help all regions develop as much as possible and achieve their potential. It is only this way and by allowing potentially rich regions to develop as fast as possible that we will get the human and financial resources we need to help other regions which occasionally fall behind. It is within this context that I look at the role DREE will play as a very positive component of this new committee, this board of ministers, of that I can assure the Elouse.
In the last three years, to give you an idea of the importance of the task and of the difficulties, when I came in DREE, we began to operate under a formula called the general development agreement. We negotiated and signed those agreements with the nine provinces in Canada, as there was a completely separate agreement with Prince Edward Island. It was the result of a three-year experience in MEER which made us realize that we needed a much more flexible piece of legislation, a much more flexible working tool.
The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) opposite understands very well what I mean. I think that that mechanism is not perfect, Mr. Speaker, but it is one of the best mechanisms the federal government has ever developed with the provinces to be able to work together, to fulfil both the objectives of the provinces and of the federal government, i hear criticism from time to time both on the opposition side and outside the House, namely that the federal government, through DREE agreements, forces its own will on to the provinces, but there is nothing less true.
If I take Newfoundland as an example, where DREE contributes 90 per cent of a project on which we have agreed, we do not impose our views upon the province. We have a discussion with the province representatives and they set forth their priorities and all their needs. We examine this along with them and we indicate where we think we could join and help them. We do not impose anything upon the province. The province has the last word on where our effort will be most useful when we accept to help. So we do not impose anything. We have signed with the province of Newfoundland a long list of agreements covering all sectors of economic activity in this province. We did the same with New Brunswick. We have practically completed the whole gamut of intervention sectors in Nova Scotia and, of course, we are involved in all sectors in Prince Edward Island. We are now involved in three-quarters of the areas of economic activity in Quebec, through agree-
Economic Development
ments already in place. This is concerted action by both levels of government which want to attack the evil at the root, which want to activate and accelerate the development of their economy and particularly the resource sector.
Why is the federal government taking part in this effort? It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, since the provinces, under the Canadian constitution and the jurisdiction which is given to them, are responsible for and owners of these resources, that the federal government does not control the development of the Canadian economy 100 per cent. That is obvious to anybody who examines the situation. Since the resources belong to the provinces, are managed by them, and are subject to provincial legislation, their development will necessarily take place as and how the provinces see fit, according to their potential and the general economic outlook, both in Canada and around the world, and that is why we now have a general development agreement and we have signed subsidiary agreements in the past four years, over 100 in fact, Mr. Speaker. I have personally negotiated 80 of those agreements, and 60 major amendments to those agreements. It is no wonder that since I have been appointed head of the department, that is for three years, I have spent a large portion of my time in ministerial meetings, together with our officials, with the various provincial governments in a constant, commendable and sincere effort to help one another in achieving the common objectives of the two levels of government, namely the rational, reasonable development of the potential of each one of our provinces according to its possibilities and resources.
We signed those agreements and since its inception, Mr. Speaker, with the provinces and industry DREE has spent $3,600 billion. At this point in time, another $2 billion has been committed, money still to be paid out as a result of my own commitments or those of my predecessors-though they are largely mine for the last three years-as I was saying, over $2 billion will be paid to the provinces and industries under the Regional Development Incentives Act. To a very large extent, in fact my data confirm it, 82 per cent of my budget represents amounts committed under agreements signed with the various provincial governments in every field of economic activity.
As a result of that effort we are making together and will continue to make together we will do more together and in a more efficient way during the coming months thanks to the creation of that instrument of co-ordination. Mr. Speaker, I would not want to disclose any secrets but I am standing here with a little pride today, and more particularly today, and you understand what I mean, Mr. Speaker. Today, that board sat for the second time and today it made its first decision. So much for the criticisms made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition who said that DREE would disappear that DREE would be weakened, that its role would be less important. He said so yesterday. I am proud to be here today and announce that the first decision by the board this morning, a major

December 14, 1978
Economic Development
decision, was made on a file submitted by myself, by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, and in support of the most destitute province in this country, Newfoundland, that today the government of Canada made a clearly positive decision in support of the economy of the province of Newfoundland. That is the first step.
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, and through you hon. members of this House, that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is not about to disappear. Rather the opposite is happening thanks to the experience acquired in the past ten years, the work of our officials all across this country, the rather special situation in which we find ourselves with officials in every provincial capital working on a daily basis with the people at a provincial level, the people in each of those provinces, with industry people and groups representing the workers. The officials of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion are those who are-and it is with great pleasure that I say this-are those who are best informed about local situations and who are in the best position to help this government reflect not only the situation but also the needs and projects it must support to increase economic activity in those areas. That department is doing its work and will continue to do so as effectively as possible through that co-ordination instrument.
To give you a better idea of the work they have done, Mr. Speaker, I said a while ago that we have signed more than 100 agreements. Over the last three years, and I said so in committee, in this House and publicly to the media, I tried to get the support of my colleagues. Did I succeed? Here is a little clue: out of 88 agreements signed during that period, 57 of them, from departments other than DREE, seconded my efforts.
The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources joined DREE to sign agreements with the provinces on nine occasions. The Department of Transport-and transport is very important-joined DREE to sign agreements with provinces on 13 occasions.
I have signed agreements with the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce on ten different occasions. I could give the whole list. On 57 occasions, federal departments jointed with DREE to support my action and my objectives in co-operation with the provinces not only by providing the technical assistance of federal public servants, but also by providing us with millions of dollars, even though not as much as I would have liked, I hasten to add. 1 did not get as much money as I would have wished from my colleagues when they jointed in my efforts. They gave me their moral support. They gave me the support of their policies. They gave me the support of their officials, and occasionally, the support of their funds, but not as much as I would have wished.
The Department of Transport has committed $60 million in co-operation with DREE, Employment and Immigration $46 million, Energy, Mines and Resources $10.5 million and Environment and Fisheries $9 million. You can see all the money

that my colleagues have committed to my programs in addition to the contribution of DREE. All together, they have contributed $131,836,670. This is the effort of co-operation and co-ordination that I have tried to obtain and that I have been rather successfull in obtaining in the last three years. I am convinced that I have had enough discussions with my colleague, the president of the new Board of Economic Development Ministers, whom I know very well, to know what are our objectives. I can see that it is now five o'clock, so I shall continue at eight o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for York South (Mrs. Appolloni)-Health and Welfare-Funding of Planned Parenthood Association; the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen)-Sports- Canada's participation in Moscow Olympics; the hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack)- National Revenue-Sales tax rebate on inventories of manufactured goods.
It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions (papers).


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
A. Daniel McKenzie: That an order of the House do issue for a copy of all government contracts, excluding Crown corporations and agencies, with Canadian firms and individuals in the years 1976 and 1977.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I placed this motion on the order paper some time ago. The government has informed me that it is too costly and too time consuming to produce any of these documents, which number in the thousands, and we have no idea at all what it has done with these studies or whether any of the recommendations will be implemented. I would like to see many of them brought before the appropriate standing
December 14, 1978

committee so that members of the opposition can review these contracts and studies to see what they are all about. I think Canadian taxpayers are entitled to know what is in all of these thousands and thousands of contracts and studies which are costing hundreds of millions of dollars.
I have been gathering statistical information over the past couple of years through questions on the order paper, and I have only a partial count. However, 1 have information on some 940 contracts with a total assessed value in excess of $225 million. In the second stage of my study I found out that the total amount paid to contract employees during the fiscal year 1975 was $25,720,000. In 1976 the total was in excess of $21 million. The figure must be astronomical if one included the amounts for those years prior to 1975 along with the figures for 1977 and 1978.
Nevertheless I have received some answers from the ministry with regard to public servants under contract. I would like to put on the record the costs for some departments to give the House an idea of the amounts spent. Agriculture, $3,275,000; Consumer and Corporate Affairs, $1,047,000; Fisheries and Environment, $3,870,000; Indian Affairs and Northern Development almost $16 million; Employment and Immigration, $2,859,000; and Supply and Services, $959,000.
It was interesting to listen to the statement made by the new Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. De Bane) the other day. He said he believes in open government and will be co-operating with everyone. We hope, therefore, that some of these studies and contracts will be made available by his department.
I will now give some descriptions of these studies. Treasury Board spent $133,000 for a study on the psycho-social factors affecting the attitudes, motivations and behaviour of public servants. I do not know whether that study is just gathering dust on a shelf or whether any recommendations have been implemented. I think all opposition members are entitled to look at some of these documents and perhaps, some of them should be discussed in committees.
The next one I refer to is an $18,000 contract for the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources to provide consultation for accurately showing canoe routes on maps. Under the Department of National Health and Welfare there is a $4,000 study to write and edit a handbook on family planning for use by pharmacists when providing information to their clientele on family planning matters. I do not know whether any pharmacists have received this or whether they use it.
There was also a study concerning the extent and level of divorce and marriage counselling services in selected communities in Ontario, for an amount of $2,000.
Under the Department of Public Works $20,000 was spent to provide fine art work for major postal plants at Saint John, New Brunswick. This was a contract given to a John Owen Cooper. I do not know who John Owen Cooper is. We should know a little bit about him and whether anything has been done with this particular study.
Government Contracts
The next one I would like to point out is a $9,500 preliminary study for a golf course at Mirabel, Quebec. As if we have not squandered and wasted enough money on that white elephant without having some kind of a study for a golf course at Mirabel. What an extravagant waste of taxpayers' money that is! I would certainly like to look at that document.
The next one is a $118,000 contract to study publicity in connection with people living on expropriated land near Mirabel in the province of Quebec. We have certainly seen enough publicity about Mirabel without giving somebody $118,000 to do yet another study on publicity for Mirabel.
This list goes on and on. I see the Secretary of States' Department with an $11,000 study to prepare design proposals for large and miniature certificates of Canadian citizenship. It also is to provide finished art work for those certificates and prototypes of large certificates if requested. I wonder where that study is today. On occasion we in the opposition get copies of these studies and contracts. They are leaked to us; that is the only way we obtain them.
The next one I come to was done by E. P. Fitzgerald and Associates in Ottawa. It is a study on the economy, inflation, housing, use of tax bonds, reducing waste in government, etc. Accompanying this study there is a letter written by Mr. Fitzgerald, the principal, to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I quote from the second paragraph in the letter:
Also, at Ivan Head's suggestion I submitted the document to James Coutts for review which, owing to his crowded schedule, somewhat delayed proceedings.
I have information that absolutely nothing has been done with this document and I do not know what it cost. It is entitled "The Way Ahead," by E. P. Fitzgerald, who is an engineer. In the heading it mentions that Mr. Fitzgerald is a member of the Ottawa West Liberal Association. Are these contracts and studies being handed out to Liberal executives? Is it a pay-off? Is this part of what the Prime Minister talks about when he says in his campaigns that "there will be goodies for you"? Does he mean thousands and thousands of useless contracts just passed out to Liberal friends? Who knows? Let us table some of these studies and documents and look at them to see if any of them are worthwhile.
In this particular document by E. P. Fitzgerald and Associates it says:
The purpose of this submission is not merely to comment on the contents of the working paper, but to suggest to the Prime Minister possible ways and means of developing a more rational approach towards controlling current and future inflationary trends in Canada than is at present available.
I questioned the Prime Minister in the House about this particular document some time ago and he did not know anything about it. Here it is, we have a copy of it. Probably none of the recommendations have been implemented, but somebody has likely received $25,000 or $35,000 for it.
Here are further examples of studies, and they are very questionable. The first one is an independent study to be made in relation to the government's response to the Finkelman report; the amount is $1,800. This is going to a Macey Schwartz. I do not know who Macey Schwartz is or how

December 14, 1978
Government Contracts
Macey Schwartz was picked out to do this study, unless she is on a Liberal executive in some riding in Canada.
Here is another one "to advise on ways and means of overcoming structural problems in the government's management process and to undertake a review of the government's approach to management." The amount for this study is $6,000 and this money went to a T. Taylor.
The contract description for the next one is "to provide advice and assistance to the decentralization review group, interview departmental officials, prepare reports and make recommendations." N. B. Moyer received $22,635 in connection with that. There are pages and pages of these contracts.
The next one 1 pick out is in the amount of $12,484 which goes to a J. E. Crowe. This contract was "to advise on pensions and insurance in connection with the personnel policy manual." Maybe there are some excellent recommendations in some of these studies, but who knows? Are any of the recommendations being implemented? Does anyone know that? Is there anyone that knows just what is going on? 1 think the government ha a a responsibility to make these documents available to everyone in the House. Probably the government backbenchers do not even know about these documents either, Mr. Speaker.
I see another one in the amount of $9,600 to a C. Nicholson which was for a contract to plan, develop and undertake research projects on specific aspects of the federal statistical system, specified by the interdepartmental committee on federal statistical activities. It would be very interesting to speak to the civil servant who drafted the wording of that contract description. How he ever dreamed that one up or why we even need such a study is a puzzle to me. That one cost $9,600, which went to C. Nicholson. On and on it goes.
My colleague from Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has been the champion in fighting this government with regard to freedom of information. He is a perfect example of why we need freedom of information. He is certainly on target when we see examples like those I just read into the record. The hon. member for Peace River put out a position paper on freedom of information. I quote from it:
Hereafter follows the essentials of a program to restore some measure of parliamentary control.
(1)	Freedom of information and open government;
We do not have freedom of information or open government with regard to these thousands and thousands of contracts that are costing hundreds of millions of dollars and noboby knows what is happening to them.
(2)	Government accounting for spending of taxpayers' dollars;
There is no accounting here. We do not know anything about these documents or what is happening to them.
(3)	Need to answer for the use of special and extraordinary power taken by the Government;
(4)	More independence for private members of parliament.
As a private member, I hope to make some headway in convincing the government that some of these documents

should be made available to members of the opposition. The hon. member for Peace River goes on to say, and I quote:
Information in the hands of the people, freely available, with the exception of a few clearly defined exemptions, is essential to any democracy.
This has been going on for the past 15 or 16 years. None of these documents, studies or contracts have been made available to any members of the opposition. How are we to function properly? We have a right on behalf of Canadian taxpayers to see whether something is being done with these studies and contracts and to determine whether they were needed in the first place. 1 again quote:
Deception, lies and concealment, cover up of everything from stupid, unnecessary spending right through the erros, and corruption is the order of the day. And, because of this today, the anger, the disgust, the outrage, the cynicism, the total distrust of so many of our political institutions and leaders is frightening, but understandable.
We certainly have a classic example of that here. I have another document which was leaked to me a couple of years ago. It is an excellent study by Samson, Belair, Riddel and Stead on how the post office should be operated. I have asked that this document be made available to other members of parliament, but the government has refused.
I asked in committee why the Post Office does not implement the excellent recommendations contained in this report. I got no place at all because the Liberals and the NDP united to defeat my motion asking that we study the recommendations and implement some of them.
One of the most significant chapters in this document states that mail delivery should be left in the hands of private trucking companies. It gives dollar examples showing how the mail could be delivered cheaper by private truckers. The government completely ignored that recommendation and took away the contracting work from the independant contractors across Canada, the trucking firms, and got into the trucking business itself. That required an additional 129 trucks, 292 employees, and 105 part-time drivers. Hon. members can see the additional costs of operating the post office as a result of ignoring that excellent study. That document should have been referred to the standing committee so that every aspect of it could be studied. Hon members could have made a contribution with regard to implementing the excellent recommendations of that study.
I have further examples of these contracts. Mr. J. R. Clark received $4,000 to research and develop material for speeches given by the commissioners of the Canadian grain commission. Why on earth do we need a study like that? The government handed out $120,000 to Michael Arnold for a financial information system of higher education for federal and provincial governments. I do not know what that is all about.
It cost the Canadian taxpayers $4,950 for a study on services in a general support capacity to devise a feedback reporting system for user advisory services. Most of us would not understand that one, never mind what else is in the document. It cost $34,200 for a study on requirement contractual assistance in the area of accommodation planning.
December 14, 1978

On and on it goes. I have only a partial list of these contracts. I suggest this is something that could be looked at by the President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers (Mr. Andras). The government talks about restraint and proper management. This could be a challenge to the new super minister. I hope whoever speaks for the government today will give us some information as to making some of these studies available. Maybe we cannot get them all, but possibly we can get a number of the choice ones, especially those 1 mentioned today. These should be made available to members of the opposition so that we can study them over the Christmas recess.


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I normally start off my remarks by saying I am delighted and pleased to have an opportunity to reply to an hon. member's motion or private member's bill. However, I cannot begin my remarks like that today because I am not impressed with the position taken by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie).
This is not the first time we have witnessed this member take a negative position, not only in this House but with regard to questions raised in committee. The official opposition holds out to the Canadian people that it is reasonable. It tries to create the impression that it is sincere in doing its job as the official opposition. Members opposite talk about conservatism and restraint. However, this is the second time the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has come forward with an unreasonable request. I will be getting into some very specific details of that aspect.
Before getting into my general remarks, I want to take this opportunity on behalf of the new Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. De Bane) to inform the House that he will be delighted to extend an invitation to the critic of the official opposition, the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty). The minister is very sincere about this offer, and I am pleased that the hon. member is in the House so that I can seize this occasion to extend to him this official invitation.
The opposition critic and his colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, can come to the department. When they do, the appropriate officials will be duly notified that they should receive the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Duffer-in-Waterloo and his colleague so that they can be informed about any aspect of the Department of Supply and Services.
The minister has indicated to me that he is presently preparing a comprehensive reply to the letter written by the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo of December 7, 1978. The minister is quite prepared to reply to the ten points raised by the hon. member in his letter. I am delighted to inform the House that the minister will be complying with the request in the letter of December 7 from the official critic. In accordance with the policy of openness and
Government Contracts
willingness to share all available information which is not commercially confidential or which would not ordinarily be viewed by the public at large, such departmental information will be made available to Canadians.
It has been made very clear by the minister that he wants hon. members from all corners of this House to have an equal opportunity to come and be received graciously by the officials of the department. When it is deemed convenient such hon. members will be made more than welcome. Departmental officials have received and accepted this instruction from the minister, and it will be followed to the letter. As far as we are concerned, members of parliament are the most important people not only with respect to this House but also with respect to the various departments with which the Department of Supply and Services is involved.
I want to put some facts with respect to the motion before us this afternoon on the record. The department has studied this request and the size of the task outlined in this motion. I want to tell hon. members just what this motion would entail. I emphasize that the government wants to provide information which would be useful. We have tabled contracts in the past and will continue to do so within certain broad limits.
I referred earlier to commercial confidentiality. However, in our view, the current restraints on man-years and dollars would make it very difficult to comply with the hon. member's motion in the terms in which it is framed, particularly as there is still some doubt as to the purpose of the hon. members question. It is a very general question. It is not specific in any way.
All government departments issue contracts, although the Department of Supply and Services and the Department of Public Works, because of the nature of their work, are the major contracting departments.
I would like first to deal with contracts issued by these two departments, then I will speak about contracts issued by other departments.
The motion calls for copies of all government contracts with Canadian firms and individuals in the years 1976 and 1977. As hon. members know, the government's fiscal year runs from April 1 to the following March 31, and government statistics are compiled and maintained on a fiscal year basis.
In the fiscal year 1976-77 the Department of Supply and Services issued a total of 232,349 contracts and 30,662 amendments to Canadian firms or individuals, for a total of 263,011 documents. It has been determined that on the average each DSS contract contains 4.75 pages, while amendments consist of an average of two pages. In terms of sheets of paper, this becomes 1,103,658 pages for contracts and 61,324 pages for amendments, totalling 1,164,982 pages. In the next fiscal year, 1977-78, the department issued 265,305 contracts and 38,302 amendments. On the basis I have described, this represents a total of 1,336,803 pages, so that the number of contracts combined for those two years comes to 2,501,785 pages.


Mr. Beatty:: Could we have that in English, please?
2140

December 14, 1978
Government Contracts


Maurice James Harquail: At this point I would like to inform the House that the Department of Supply and Services, in accordance with government policy, does its business and issues contracts in accordance with the language choice of the public to be served. That would answer the hon. member's question about language. The policy of this government is to serve the public in both official languages.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, l apologize for interrupting the parliamentary secretary, but my question related to the figure he gave. I think he said, "2,501,785". I wonder what that would be in English. I wonder if he would give that figure again.


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised at the hon. member's attitude. The hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo and the other hon. member make a good pair. They have displayed their attitude in this House and their respect for other members while they are speaking. I think that remark will just be left with the hon. member, and if he will be polite enough, I will continue with this information. If he is able to grasp the figures, I will be happy to continue.


Henry Perrin Beatty: If you are able to say them.


Maurice James Harquail: into contracts. However, it has been the normal pattern for members of the House to inquire about specific contracts or specific areas of contracting. It seems to me that the taxpayers of Canada would have a serious objection to the expenditure of $18 million, unless there were a very defined and important objective behind the request which could not be met in a more effective and less costly way.
It would be helpful to know the true purpose of the motion. It might be that the motion flows from either a concern that the government's contracting systems are not open or accessible, or possibly from recent comments by the Auditor General on contracting in government. First, I would like to deal with possible concerns about openness in the contracting activities of the government, and in particular within the Department of Supply and Services.
Openness in the contracting system of the Department of Supply and Services is achieved through a wide dissemination of relevant contracting information to the Canadian public. This policy of openness is a further good reason why the requested contract documents need not be tabled. In order to understand fully how openness with respect to contracting information is achieved, it is first necessary to understand the role of DSS in contracting, which I will describe. In addition, it will be necessary to cover the responsibilities and procedures for contracting in so far as DSS is involved. Then I will describe the mechanisms used to provide all relevant DSS contracting information to the Canadian public. I will conclude with examples of the significant benefits achieved by the current availability and provision of contracting information to the public, which will underscore the lack of necessity for tabling all contracts for the year 1976-77.
The Department of Supply and Services provides a wide range of services to other federal government departments and agencies. The department is divided into two sections: supply administration and services administration. The services administration is responsible for the distribution of the cheques issued by the federal government, including payroll, pension and family allowance cheques. In addition, it is responsible for accounting, audit and management advisory services within the federal government. The supply administration is responsible for the procurement of everything from typewriters to tanks and ships for the federal government, buying about $3 billion worth of goods and services in 1976-77 alone.
Besides procurement, the supply administration is responsible for the provision of such other common services as printing and publishing, traffic management, warehousing and distribution, and expositions. Reporting to the Minister of Supply and Services and working closely with the supply administration is the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation which is responsible for the sale of surplus goods to the public.
The supply administration's prime objective is to provide or obtain the goods and services essential to government programs at a fair and reasonable price and, at the same time, to ensure prudence and probity in the expenditure of public funds and an equal opportunity for Canadian business and industry to do business with the federal government.
Government Contracts
As I have mentioned, one of the major impediments to tabling copies of all contracts is the sheer volume of documentation. I will give a description of the contracting responsibilities and procedures in order to indicate the complexities involved which, in turn, are reflected in contract documentation.
In a general way, the supply administration operates in a similar fashion to a supply organization within a major firm in that it is part of a larger corporation, that is, the federal government, and the basic services provided are similar. However, with close to $3 billion of annual buying power, the sheer magnitude and diversity of government operations places the supply administration in a unique position with respect to private sector supply operations. In this respect the supply administration's prime objectives are, first, to obtain the goods and services essential to government programs at a fair and reasonable price, while at the same time, second, to ensure prudence and probity in the expenditure of public funds, and third, to provide an equal opportunity to all Canadians to do business with the federal government on a fair and reasonable basis.
In the contracting process, these objectives are achieved through a judicious sharing of responsibilities between the supply administration and its customer program departments. For example, a policy has been developed which delegates low dollar value contracting responsibilities to customers, and there are provisions which allow customers the necessary flexibility to conduct emergency purchasing, where appropriate. Aside from this, some aspects of services contracting are a customer department's responsibility, although the supply administration does conduct a wide range of services contracting.
Within the contracting mandate of the supply administration, the actual process of purchasing can, and frequently does, involve much more than issuing tenders and evaluating bids. It begins with the identification of an operational need by a customer department, the funding for which must be provided for in the department's annual main estimates submission.


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


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to rise to join in this debate. First I want to indicate that I was pleased to receive the invitation extended to me by the new Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. De Bane) through his parliamentary secretary. I indicated to the minister, when he was first appointed, that I welcome his appointment because, from my experience with him while he was on the backbenches on the government side I found he had proven himself to be an individual concerned about the rights of parliament and recognizing the fact that Canadians are entitled to information concerning the way in which the government is spending money.
I should like to indicate to the minister that I will indeed be taking him up on his offer and I will be making a point of
80067-64'A

December 14, 1978
Government Contracts
visiting the various officials within his department, that I will be looking for information to fulfil my responsibilities, and will be bringing with me my colleagues who are also interested in learning about the activities of the Department of Supply and Services.
There will be two particular areas in which we will be looking as we visit the officials in the Department of Supply and Services. First, and most important, we will want to ensure in all instances that, in a department which spends several billions of dollars of the taxpayers' money every year, the taxpayers' money is well spent. That is one of the main criteria which we will be applying. Second, we will want to know what policies are being followed by the government in determining how contracts will be let. For example, what are their tendering procedures and what actions are being taken to ensure that the taxpayer gets the greatest value for his money.
We will also want to know to what extent is the purchasing policy of the Department of Supply and Services being used as a means for promoting growth in the economy, for example, growth in slow growth areas, the small business sector of our economy, and in Canadian industry at the expense of contracts being given to foreign companies.
The purpose of the motion for production of papers put down on the order paper by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) appears to have escaped the parliamentary secretary. More than once he said that he did not understand why the motion would have been put forward. If the government followed a procedure of openness and seriously believed in it, it would not have to question the motivation of my colleague. The principle should be there, that these things should be open and that access to information should be granted to every citizen. The government should not have the right to demand to know why citizens or members of parliament want to know how the government is spending its money. It should be a matter of right that citizens should have access to this information, and not a matter of discretion on the part of the government.
I apologize if I upset the parliamentary secretary during his speech by asking him if he would give the figures again which he was quoting. I was attempting to make notes of the figures he was quoting regarding the number of pages he would be required to table if the motion were put forward. Unfortunately when his officials wrote his speech, apparently they did not rehearse his delivery. He has difficulty with numbers which cannot be counted on his fingers and toes. Unfortunately in this particular instance he stumbled, and it was very difficult to understand what he was saying.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Har-quail) is seeking the floor on a point of order.


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, I think every member in the House knows about the problem with the hon. member who is

speaking now, concerning the silver spoon in the mouth, spoiled, and so on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I should like to hear the parliamentary secretary's point of order.


Maurice James Harquail: I am getting to my point of order. I just wanted to remind the member, if he is not already aware of this fact, that he will have an opportunity to rehearse himself, and to read the facts which I put forward, in Hansard tomorrow.


Henry Perrin Beatty: I am sure, as the parliamentary secretary is, that the Hansard reporters will be much more faithful to the text which he was reading than was his delivery. I will look forward to reading Hansard.


Maurice James Harquail: I hope the hon. member has the ability to understand Hansard.


Henry Perrin Beatty: It is worth while for us to take a look at some of the contracts let by the government, and at some of its tendering procedures. I should like to refer the House to the Auditor General's report released in parliament a couple of weeks ago. One of the very interesting findings of the Auditor General related to the entire tendering process. I raised a question in the House on the day the Auditor General's report was released, November 24. I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) about this. My specific question read as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question about the Auditor General's report. As the Prime Minister will be aware the Auditor General states in his report that throughout the government, contracts of great value are given out without calling for competitive tenders.
More contracts without tenders are given out than with competitive tenders being called.
It continued:
For example, the Auditor General points out that the Department of Supply and Services alone signed about 90,000 contracts, totalling over $1,800 million, without calling for competitive tenders.
I asked the Prime Minister how he could justify this particular activity, particularly in view of the fact that it would appear to fly in the face of the government's own regulations regarding tenders. Surely the motion put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is designed to give parliament access to this sort of information, so that we know the way in which the government's tendering process has been going, and whether money being spent by the government, which is held in trust on behalf of taxpayers, is being well spent. Surely Canadians are entitled to that information. It is an anomaly, and it is something about which I will be requesting information from the minister.
In the period looked at by the Auditor General, of the contracts identified as the source, one half of them in total numbers were given out without competitive tenders being called. Approximately two thirds of the value of the contracts given out were without competitive tendering. What confidence do Canadian taxpayers have that their money is being well spent if the bulk of this department's contracting in this
December 14, 1978

area, or two thirds of the contracts, were given out without competitive tenders being called?
In the House of Commons in the course of the last couple of weeks we have debated the issue of Loto Select. This is another instance where the government rushed into signing contracts on behalf of Canadians which ultimately will cost taxpayers several millions of dollars, because the government botched its attempt to set up a computerized lottery. Members of parliament on this side of the House-during the last couple of weeks-have requested information as to the nature of those contracts signed by Loto Canada. When one recognizes the fact that the General Instruments contract had a reported face value of approximately $23 million, than surely Canadians are entitled to know the substance of that contract. When I raised the question in the House of Commons, I was questioning on behalf of my constituents and Canadian taxpayers. I was told that parliament would be denied that information because the government specifically wrote into the contract a confidentiality clause which forbade the giving out of information concerning the spending of this public money.
What possible justification is there for government to operate in secrecy when it committed $23 million of taxpayers' money? What possible justification could there be? We are left to speculate as to what the cause was. One of the apparent reasons was that the government was so anxious to get into the Loto Select program, pre-empt the $1 computerized lottery deal, and to get in there before the provinces did, that it operated in haste and secrecy. The government made every effort possible to prevent the provinces from knowing what was happening lest the provinces should get into the field before the government did. The cost for the success the government had in getting in there first, and the cost the government had for operating in secrecy, will be several millions of dollars of Canadian taxpayers' money being poured down the drain.
We do not know yet what the figure will be. We will not know until the government has been successful in negotiating its way out of these contracts. But the government has made it clear all the way along the line that it preferred to operate in secrecy, rather than share with Canadians information concerning the manner in which this money was being spent.
Other questions arise out of this particular contract. The contract with General Instrument for $23 million was given out to an American computer company headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland, without tenders being called by the federal government. This is a highly competitive field. There were Canadian businesses in the field which were equipped and anxious to bid on this multi-million dollar contract, but they were strictly forbidden. The government did not allow competitive tendering. In the past when we asked the government why it did not allow competitive tendering, its answer was that it wanted to favour Canadian companies, that it did not want a lower bid to be brought in by a foreign competitor, and that it wanted to ensure the benefit stayed in Canada. This was a case where the government signed a contract for $23 million, in secrecy. It did not allow Canadian companies to compete. Now the government finds it has so badly mishan-
Government Contracts
died the matter that the cost to the Canadian public will be several million dollars.
In connection with this same computerized lottery program, another contract appears to have been given out. It was a contract to Addressograph-Multigraph, Ltd. It was designed for that firm to create machinery-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Milne) is seeking the floor on a point of order.


Mr. Milne:: I apologize to the hon. member opposite for interrupting his speech. Would he put on the record the names of the Canadian companies which had the capabilities for answering the contract?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I refer the hon. member for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Milne) to the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) who communicated with the minister at the time. He gave the minister a number of names of companies which would have been interested. I am sure he is prepared to make those names available at any time to any hon. member opposite who wants them. I am sure he would be delighted to do that because one of the companies was headquartered in his constituency. He heard from these companies afterwards that they were very disturbed by the fact they were not allowed to participate in this contract.


William Ross Milne: Are the names of these companies on the public record?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Certainly my colleague would be prepared to put the names on the public record. The difficulty was that the companies were not allowed to compete because tenders were never called. They could not even offer themselves to do the job. After the fact, they found out the contract had been given out to an American company.
Before the hon. member asked his question, I was raising the matter of Addressograph-Multigraph, Ltd. According to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, a contract was signed by Loto Select for $5 million. At the present time the federal government is attempting to negotiate out of this contract too at the collapse of Loto Select. According to the report on the CBC the cost of negotiating out of this contract could be up to 20 per cent of the face value of the contract itself. It could be up to $1 million.
I asked the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mrs. Campagnolo) just last week about this particular contract, and whether or not, when she gave the figure of $2 million or $3 million of Canadians' money being poured down the drain already on the Loto Select program, she included the Addressograph-Multigraph contract. She was unwilling even to give the House that information. Again we see an example of how the government prefers to operate in secrecy and how it feels that Canadians are not entitled to full information on how their money is being spent.

December 14, 1978
Government Contracts
My friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, put on the record a number of contracts which he felt were questionable and which he felt parliament had a responsibility, as trustee of the public's money, to investigate and hold the government to account for. Another one I raised in the House myself a couple of years ago was one in which it was discovered that the federal government was contracting out for a study to be done of public washroom facilities.
If you were in the National Arts Centre washroom a couple of years ago, Mr. Speaker, you might very well have noticed while you were in there that there were people in there with a tape recorder in one hand and a stopwatch in the other, timing the amount of time it took you to use the various facilities. This information was gathered up from various public washrooms, fed through a computer at a cost to the taxpayer of some $200,000, so they could get some indication of how long it took people to use facilities in public washrooms. This again is an example, which I think boggles the mind, that governments are capable of getting into this sort of contract. When governments operate in secrecy without public scrutiny, this sort of contract is all the more possible. Anywhere but in Ottawa a person would be arrested for hanging around washrooms watching people. In Ottawa they get paid $200,000. There is something terribly wrong here.
I also want to deal with a couple of other matters which I think are of concern as well. I raised a question on Monday in the House about a contract which had been given to the Robertson, Nickerson Groups Associates Limited. This particular group did a study on behalf of the federal government of the training of skilled blue collar workers. Again this was done at a cost to the taxpayer. We do not know what the cost was. The government does not appear to be very forthcoming in terms of information as to its costs. We do not even know when it was received by the government. But a copy of it has become available and it is clear that in the report the group condemns the government for its handling of its manpower training policies, and points out that at a time in Canada when we have runaway unemployment, with over one million people who cannot find jobs, there is actually a shortage of skilled blue collar industrial workers and we are forced to import people from abroad to fill those jobs which are available today.
Was this report freely given out by the government? Was it tabled in parliament? Was it made available to the private sector as soon as it was received by government? No, it was received through the back door. Even on Monday my office called the minister's office to ask whether it would be possible to get a copy of this report. What were we told? Initially we were informed that they did not know what report it was we were talking about; then the minister's assistant was out all morning. He was just out of the office, or out to lunch. Then finally we learned that the minister's office could not find their copy. It had apparently disappeared somewhere. Fortunately 1 have a copy of this report, and I was able to make it available to members of the House who were concerned about it.
Surely this is symptomatic of the problems we have been dealing with here. It is symptomatic of the problem my friend,

the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, wants to cure. When public funds are being spent the public should surely have the right to see the way in which that money is being spent. The public should surely have the right to examine these contracts, and should surely have the right to study the reports which are received back by the government after the tax money has been spent.
We should take a look at the broad range of government contracting procedures and do everything possible to make sure they are open and that Canadians are not just tolerated, or that scrutiny by Canadians is not just tolerated but should be invited by the government. When the federal government is spending some $50 billion every year of taxpayers' funds, we have the responsibility as public trustees to ensure that the money is well spent. We should recognize that it is not our money and not the government's money but is the public's money.
When it comes to freedom of information the principle is very simple. It should be that the information is the property of the people and not the property of government, and the onus should be on the government to justify withholding information, not on the people to justify getting the information.
I would refer hon. members of the House to the order paper. You can look, on any day, and see the number of questions which remain on the order paper, questions asking for information on contracts, about government policies, and about actions taken by various cabinet ministers. Often this information is extremely straightforward, yet these questions sit on the order paper day after day after day, week after week, and month after month. In come cases the questions have stayed on the order paper for years unanswered.
I myself have a number of questions on the order paper at the present time asking about the government's purchasing policies and how much money it spends on various items. 1 made the offer to the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) that if he felt it was too costly to provide this information, which had its genesis in the Auditor General's report, and if he felt it was too cumbersome and time consuming, I would appreciate hearing that from him and would be willing, in instances where he could justify that, to withdraw the questions. The parliamentary secretary did not take me up on that offer. He did not say that these questions were too expensive or time consuming; he just simply left them unanswered. Surely this is a classic example of the way in which the government deals with this whole question of the public's right to know the way in which the government is operating.
With most contracts and most reports, extra copies are printed. It is not terribly costly for the government to give those copies, or make them freely available to members of parliament and the public. I think the time has come when the House of Commons should be on record as supporting the right of the public and the right of parliamentarians to do that job of holding the government to account, scrutinizing the spending activities of government and making sure that every single penny taken from the taxpayers of Canada is properly
December 14, 1978

and wisely spent. If we do not take that action today, and if we do not stand up on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada, we will be letting them down at a very important time in our history.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill S-10, an act to facilitate conversion to the metric system of measurement, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.
The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair till eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Trudeau:
That the following address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General of Canada:
To His Excellency the Right Honourable Jules Leger, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada.
May it please Your Excellency:
The House of Commons, having considered the proposed text of the order in council laid upon the Table of the House on 4 December 1978, in relation to the establishment of a Ministry of State for Economic Development, prays that the making of the said order in council be approved.
Marcel Lessard: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When the House adjourned at five o'clock I was giving a brief historical account of the co-operation and co-ordination we managed to get in the last three years in the pursuit of the objectives of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. I was talking about the importance and the need of obtaining that co-operation from other federal departments in the pursuit of those objec-
Economic Development
tives because it is quite obvious that a department could not take up that challenge alone.
I did get that co-operation, as I mentioned for that matter with supporting evidence, and I repeat it tonight, that co-operation is absolutely necessary and is becoming increasingly so if we truly want to reach those objectives. That is why, Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister announced the formation of the Board of Economic Development Ministers I was very pleased because I think it is a step toward the achievement of my objectives which are precisely to bring a greater number of departments and officials of those departments at the federal level, to inform them and urge them to join in the efforts we are making to develop remote and isolated areas, those that in the last decades did not have the same degree of development as the rest of the country. And I was saying that in that effort, on the other hand, we should not lose sight of the need to co-ordinate our efforts in terms of our economic and industrial policies to make sure that the more aggressive parts of our country will continue to develop at their normal pace.
I also referred to the understanding of the former president of the Treasury Board and the new minister who was assigned the task of presiding over the board, the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Andras)-I think we both have a good understanding of the objectives the Prime Minister wants to see us achieve as a result of the establishment of that board. This afternoon and yesterday we were able in listening to the speeches and the arguments of members of this House but previously to realize the importance of having a better co-ordination. Opposition members can attack that government proposal all they want, see it as a division, try to see a downgrading of certain departments, of their autonomy, well, to them I say this: I think Canadians as a whole want better development, a faster and orderly development of Canada's economy, more wealth and more jobs.
If certain departments have to co-ordinate their activities and forgo a certain part of their autonomy, and if this is the price we have to pay, I suggest that the price is not too high. I believe we would be making very few concessions, and then mostly as concerns our pride, by accepting to sit with five, six or seven other ministers or departments to co-ordinate our activities aimed at supporting Canadian economic development.
I would now like to talk about the criticisms that have been made, for instance, by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) who said yesterday that this new body would swallow up departments such as DREE in particular and make them fade away so that they will no longer have any influence or any hope of attaining their goals.
Were I a cynic, Mr. Speaker, I would be tempted to tell the Leader of the Opposition that he should be happy at the result he expects because, if we go back two years, when the Leader of the Opposition took over his present responsibilities, in his first speech in New Brunswick he suggested that DREE was

December 14, 1978
Economic Development
useless and should be abolished. In fact, I have here a copy of this speech, which was made at the University of New Brunswick. A few months later, Mr. Speaker, on his return from the maritime provinces, he made another speech in which he amended his previous position. He said that DREE was probably a good department, but that it was badly managed, especially because it imposed its will on the provinces. He went on from there. However, a year later, he went back to New Brunswick and made another speech. This time he said: DREE is a good department. It is useful and did good things in the Atlantic provinces but, you know, it might be reorganized a little. It might have a larger budget and with better co-operation from other departments it might probably do more. He had made some progress. He did so because he was told in the Atlantic provinces, particularly by Newfoundland and New Brunswick Conservative premiers, about the work done by DREE in the Atlantic provinces, something which the Leader of the Opposition was not fully aware of.
This is why he took the risk, if I may say so, to criticize in the Atlantic provinces the work of the department which is presently one of the best perceived and supported in the four Atlantic provinces. That can be seen in the results of federal-provincial conferences here in Ottawa where nine of the ten premiers supported without any reservation the action, the work and the co-operation they have received from DREE in the last ten years. The Leader of the Opposition realized he had made a mistake, so he withdrew and corrected this statements. It demonstrates that you can sometimes learn from experience. Of course, he says that it is a delegation of authority and denounces the secrecy in government operations. I do not see what DREE has to do in those allegations because there is not much secrecy in our operations with the provinces. He said that the department was going to disappear and I might comfort him by telling him that not only it will not disappear but it will become one of the most important tools in the achievement of economic development and industrial strategy of this government and this political party.
And the action of DREE will increase in coming months and years because it is a tool, a mechanism absolutely necessary because of its flexibility which allows us to adjust, from time to time, to changing situations in various provinces. You can be sure, Mr. Speaker, that the department will not only continue to assume its responsibilities but also that those responsibilities will be increased in the coming years.
The Leader of the Opposition once again criticized this group because it will have too much power, because there will be too much power concentrated in the hands of a small number of ministers and that in fact this power will be exercised to the detriment of other departments. Yet at the same time and almost in the same vein he became critical of the fact that certain departments have been left out of this board of ministers, among others the Department of Agricul-
[Mr. Lessard.l
ture and the Department of Fisheries and Environment which in his mind should have been part of this board. It is therefore very difficult to reconcile the arguments put forth by the Leader of the Opposition who, on the one side, says that this body wields too much power and on the other side, that he would like to see other departments included in this board.
Of course we could argue extensively over the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition but I think I will content myself with these few comments simply to conclude that perhaps the Leader of the Opposition will be in a better position to judge during the coming weeks and the coming months the actions and the decisions taken by the Board of Economic Development Ministers. We have to take very specific actions which will even match certain suggestions made this afternoon by some hon. members opposite. We are conscious that if we want to implement these recommendations which number more then 800, probably half of them have already more or less been applied within the system. The 800 recommendations have come out of the 23 sectorial studies by a very broad selection of financial, industrial and labour leaders and representatives of the various levels of government during these past 12 months. These tasks force have dealt with 23 sectors of our economic activity. These people have made a great number of recommendations.
How can we expect the government to be able to implement all these recommendations if there is no mechanism for consultation and co-ordination, in order to study them and try to estalish some form of programming because it is quite impossible to implement them altogether at the same time. One must therefore provide for a gradual implementation of these recommendations made to us. Priorities will also have to be established in this gradual process for the implementation of these programs and these new formulas. That will have to be done by working closely and consulting with the provinces. All of that calls for a group of ministers to fulfil this task, this responsibility of conveying regularly in order to review these recommendations, to check and experiment as deemed necessary. We need that mechanism, and that is precisely what the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is giving us. He indicated he was going to do so by setting up the Board of Economic Development Ministers.
The hon. member of the Social Credit Party of Canada who spoke yesterday said that, in short, that board was a panic board. I shall not dwell on that at any length. In no way is it a panic board. It was set up after considerable thought, to solve a problem to meet a need. Rest assured, Mr. Speaker, that we shall not act under the stress of panic. We know what our objectives are. There are policies on which we will have to pass judgment. There are interventions the Canadian government will have to make in several sectors of the economy in coming months and years. Those interventions will be well thought out. There is no question of panic here. We will have to make decisions, and recommendations to the right hon. Prime Minis-
December 14, 1978

ter and the cabinet on what we believe the decisions should be. The departments will be responsible for delivering, implementing, applying and developing the decisions of the cabinet. That is how it will operate. It will not be a department with 2,000 or 3,000 employees as has been suggested in some quarters.
The department will include a maximum of 150 employees selected in other departments and, as a result of some consultations, there will probably be some DREE officials who will join that team to make sure that the purposes and objectives of DREE are well reflected in the decisions which that board will be led to take. Indeed, there is nothing improvised in the announcement made by the Prime Minister three weeks ago. There is absolutely no improvisation and it is merely the normal result of a development, of discussions which have been going on for two years in the country and in this House, and especially during cabinet meetings.
I see that the time allowed to me, Mr. Speaker, will soon come to an end and I would like to conclude with some more specific comments and more especially ask the members of this House and Canadians generally for their co-operation, because I think that Canadians are interested in the debate, realizing that there is an opportunity to take up the challenges they are facing.
Personally, I shall willingly work within the board with a wide open approach. I am not limited in my outlook, I am not prejudiced, I would quite simply examine these proposals. I would like to examine the segments of our Canadian economy. I would like in particular to see how the development of each segment can be integrated with the stepped-up development of the so-called underdeveloped, or not adequately developed areas. Such is my department's role, and through you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the House as well as every province and municipality, but provinces especially, and also the various groups and industries throughout Canada, whether in Newfoundland or Labrador, northern Quebec, northern Ontario or northern Alberta, that in pursuit of our goal we will consider the particular needs and above all the potential of each of those areas, because there is a vast potential in the vast northern parts of each of our Canadian provinces. As a Canadian government, I believe it is part of our responsibility to ensure that the road we have been and will be covering, especially during the next few months, is consistent with the need for balanced development in the economies of each of our regions.
In conclusion, I would ask my colleagues in this House to support the motion put forward by the Prime Minister. It is totally non-partisan, it reflects the commendable will, and this of course will be perfectly understood, of this government to achieve in co-operation with provincial governments a more rational development of this country's potential for the benefit of all Canadians.
Economic Development


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I was not able to follow the minister's eloquent address in his native tongue because I am sure it would have been more interesting than hearing it through a translation. 1 have seldom heard him so worked up or so eloquent-and in such an ignoble cause. The hon. gentleman was doing his best in a cause which he knows is lost.
When I look at this order in council, at this economic management board, I think of the old program "Superman" we used to hear on radio and read about in the comic papers- today it is a movie. "Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's super-Andras." Or shall we shorten that in the future and say it is super-ass? What a confession of utter failure and economic bankruptcy on the part of the government that it should now, in the fifth year of its term, set up an economic development board under a president! It is an admission that all through its term since 1974 the government has failed in the area of economic development. Even the admission to the economic development ministers of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner), from our ranks, did nothing to redeem the failure they have been experiencing for the last five years.
I know this is not an exact quote, Mr. Speaker, but the saying is that in that in the valley of the blind the one-eyed man is king. Well, the President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers (Mr. Andras), the hon. member from the twin cities, the one-eyed man, is the new president of the board and in the valley of the blind he is king. The others are blind, they cannot see, they have failed utterly to accomplish anything. So they will be further ahead with a one-eyed squinter than with the seven ministers who have held those portfolios over the last few years.
Before I get launched on this address of mine, let me give you a quotation from Khrushchev. I am going right to the source, Mr. Speaker-the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) would tremble with delight were he to hear this quotation from Khrushchev who is very dear to his heart. Khrushchev once said, "Economics is a subject which does not greatly respect one's wishes." That is what has been happening in the last four or five years. The government has wished that it was competent in the economic field but economics does not respect one's wishes. Mr. Khrushchev found that out in Russia, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is finding it out in Canada. Indeed he has found it out, and now in the last, desperate extremities of his reign he appoints this superminister of economics.
I want to give several quotations at the start, Mr. Speaker, so that you may get the flavour of my address. W. C. Fields once said "The cost of living has gone up another dollar a quart." I wish the leader of the New Democratic Party were here tonight to hear something that would appeal to him, but he won't stay to hear anybody speak but himself. He gave us a lecture yesterday on the planned economy. Under a planned economy, said Mr. Carey McWilliams everything is included

December 14, 1978
Economic Development
in the plan except economy. That is the kind of planned economy hon. gentlemen to my left would give us if the people of Canada were so desperate or so down in the dumps, or so abysmally dismal in their outlook as to give that gang in the corner their vote.
Finally, my last quotation-from now on it is going to be pure me, Mr. Speaker. It is from George Bernard Shaw. Mr. Shaw said that "if all economists were laid end to end"-my God, what a lay that would be-"they would not reach a conclusion." That is what we have got here tonight. The government has been laid end to end. The ministers of the government have been laid end to end. The people of Canada have been laid end to end, and the government has not yet reached a conclusion.
I do not want to be critical. Have you ever noticed how every time this government gets into a little bit of difficulty, it adopts a change in nomenclature? The minister of employment, the gentleman who the other day was referred to as being "cullenized", was once the minister in charge of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. They changed his title to minister of employment. It did not mean the employment of one more Canadian. The status of unemployed Canadians never changed one iota because the minister has his title changed from minister of unemployment to the minister of employment. Every now and then this government wants a little name change.


Mr. Nystrom:: It helps the sign painters.


John Carnell Crosbie: It helps the sign painters as my friend, "nosy nostrum", says, or "nasty nosetrum", or whatever his name is. He is from Saskatchewan, I believe. You know that little cartoon, that is "nasty nostrum". He hangs on a balloon floating along in the sky. That is the NDP party. They are floating along in the sky.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: You sound like Allan Fotheringham.


John Carnell Crosbie: This government believes in sleight of hand. Whenever things get difficult, they change the name, set up another board or set up another group. What they have done this time is set up another minister. It is the old shell game. How many peas are under the shell? Under which shell is the pea? We are getting "pea'd" off with this government. We know what shell the pea is under. They do not have to carry on this shell game any longer for us. We know what the end result of that game is.
This is the emperor's new clothes policy. Do you remember the old fairy tale of the emperor who wanted to change his clothes? He was persuaded that he had clothes on, that he was looking beautiful. When he walked down the street, he had nothing on. He was naked as a newt. This is the emperor's new clothes policy. Whenever the government is in difficulty, its members change their clothes. They try to persuade us they have clothes on when they are naked. They have no ideas, no

policy, no action, no follow through, nothing. They are naked. This economic development board is the emperor's new clothes.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Hear that, Monique? Naked government!


John Carnell Crosbie: I did not know the hon. minister was here. I would not have mentioned that word naked.
Let us look at industry, trade and commerce. This is one of the departments that has been decapitated. It has had its head removed by the new economic development board. You might ask why that department should have its head removed. The answer is because the head has been so ineffective it might as well be removed. No wonder the Prime Minister set up this economic development board.
On November 9, 1977, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) stated, "We are on threshold of tremendous growth." I do not know where he was sitting. He must have been sitting on top of the deficit. The deficit had tremendous growth, but Canada did not. As a forecaster, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who is supposed to be one of the super powers in the economic ministry of the government, does not get full marks.
On October 5 of this year he stated in Sarnia that the Canadian economy is entering a period of stable growth. The Canadian economy went from tremendous growth to stable growth. At least that was something. Now we are in a period of stable growth. This is the same gentleman who said he favoured leaving the dollar at 90 cents U.S. He said par is 90 cents. When you have a Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who says par is 90 cents, no wonder you have to set up an economic development board. I always thought that par was 100 cents. The fall of the Canadian dollar has been useful, he said on November 9, 1977, and he hoped it would stay around for awhile. He was an accurate forecaster there, Mr. Speaker. It certainly stayed around. It is down to 84 something today. It should be 90 cents.
On May 12, 1978, the minister was quoted in the Winnipeg Tribune-he did not realize anyone read that paper-as saying he thought it would be obvious that the economy had picked up a great deal. Has anybody noticed this great pick-up in the economy this fall? I do not think so. We have noticed that the Prime Minister in his extremity set up this economic development board, but the economy has not picked up a great deal. All that has picked up a great deal is the President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers. He has picked up a great deal, but we do not know how long his great deal is going to be picked up. I do not want to spend too much time on industry, trade and commerce, although I am the critic of that department.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You mean you are going to quit reading my speeches?


John Carnell Crosbie: I cannot quit reading the minister's speeches, because I love being entertained and amused. One thing about this minister is he will not listen to anyone. We noticed that
December 14, 1978

when he was in our caucus. He has kept that trait. I am now looking at a CP clip which appeared in the November 13, 1978, edition of the Montreal Gazette. It contains a quote by officials of the Science Council of Canada, Mr. John Orr and Mr. John Shepherd. They stated:
Industry Minister Jack Horner is deceiving Canadians into thinking Canada has a healthy trade picture by deliberately misreading our trade figures-
A study that the minister had prepared by his department was completely a snow job because he was trying to pretend that Canada does not have a problem in manufactured end products. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce often refers to this $ 11 billion deficit and says we do not have a problem.
They further stated:
-the real weakness in Canadian industry is in the area of fully manufactured goods.
Do you know what the minister said in response to this reasoned criticism from the Science Council of Canada, with members who are appointed and paid by the Government of Canada? The minister said they are talking balderdash. He said. "What do they know about running a business in the real business world?"
While he has been here for the last 15 years agitating in Ottawa, and now springing to fruition in his department-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Twenty years.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. John Orr is a successful consultant and Mr. John Shepherd a successful entrepreneur, a manufacturer, a leader in the field of electronics. For the last few years he has been trying to serve Canada on the Science Council of Canada. However, they are not listened to by the government. The minister says they talk balderdash. What do they know about running a real business?
The government is not totally hopeless. On November 20 I asked the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen), who is in charge of GATT negotiations, pipelines and so on, a question. I pointed out that between 1970 and 1976 Canada's share of the world market for manufactured goods fell from 6 per cent to 4.7 per cent. At that time the world demand for world exports was increasing rapidly. I asked whether he agreed with the analysis of Mr. Shepherd and Mr. Orr that a real weakness was in the area of fully manufactured goods, or did he think that was balderdash. The Deputy Prime Minister replied:
No, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that these statements are balderdash, even though when repeated by the hon. member they have not improved in transmission. They are serious views which will be taken into account by the government in its ongoing effort to develop and implement an industrial policy in Canada.
The Deputy Prime Minister had to repudiate the silly statement of his own Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. No wonder the government had to set up an economic development board.
The Prime Minister is never ready to admit a mistake. One of his greatest mistakes was admitting the hon. member to the portfolio of industry, trade and commerce, where he has listened to no one who knows more than he does. He insults
Economic Development
them all when they offer him an opinion. I cannot use up too much time dealing with the minister. I quote from a Canadian Press story of November 8, 1978, referring to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce:
He told reporters his grand design for industrial development during the next few years is to prepare Canadian companies to be ready for the major developments ahead. He offered the Alaska natural gas pipeline and the hydroelectric power project on the lower Churchill River as examples.
When asked how he knew his new approach would work, he replied, "Because I am in charge". Now he is no longer in charge. The President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers, thank God, has been put in charge.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Jack of all trades.


John Carnell Crosbie: Jack of all trades and in charge of none. That is what the minister is now.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: He is horning in.


John Carnell Crosbie: The minister said he assured the House he would be there for a long, long time. That pipe dream is going to come to an end very quickly.
Then one of our main economic ministers, the same industry minister, said as reported in the Globe and Mail of November 8:
-the economy is posed to move ahead strongly "if our biggest purchaser, the United States, can only get its economics right."
Imagine the gall and the audacity of that statement coming from this government, which has led this country into its present economic state, its huge unemployment, its tremendous inflation, its big deficit on the current account, its deficit on the capital account-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Tell us about the U.S. trade deficit.


John Carnell Crosbie: -and its deficit in thinking. We will be all right. "We are posed to move ahead strongly if the United States can get their economics right." Imagine! No wonder the Prime Minister was driven to setting up an economic development board. The minister said that to the ten provincial ministers who were gathered to discuss, with him, the future of manufacturing. Manufacturing has no future if this government stays in office.
Then let's look at their record in tourism, which I mentioned in the question period the other day. We just had the biggest deficit in nine months that we ever had in our whole national history in tourism, $1,387 billion. The total deficit last year was $1,641 billion, more that Canadians spent outside Canada than people from outside Canada spent in Canada. What did the minister say? What did the minister say when he spoke on February 27, 1978, to the Liberal convention here in Ottawa? We know that Liberals will swallow anything. They certainly swallowed this one. He said:
Canada should come awfully close to balancing its tourism budget this year after two years' deficit-

December 14, 1978
Economic Development
No wonder the economic development board has been set up. Let's hope the president of the economic development board levels with the Canadian people, not with this kind of nonsense, not with this kind of foolish optimism, not with this kind of negligent, silly statement that was made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. "We are going to come awfully close to balancing our tourism budget," and we have had the worst nine month deficit ever in our history, $1,387 billion. It is going to exceed next year. The total nine month deficit was $53 million lower the year before. What does the government do to try to overcome it? The government introduces an additional tax on people who travel by air. The minister should have resigned when that tax was introduced.
The minister had been speaking to tourism groups all over Canada about how he was going to reduce costs and introduce promotion measures and all the rest of it, when our travel costs have risen higher here in Canada than anywhere else since 1971, and our tourist visits from the U.S. are down 1 per cent this year, and so on. Then the minister permitted the government to increase the air transportation tax from $8 to $15 in Canada and $8 to $12 or $13 from outside Canada. That is what he is doing. That is what he is permitting the government to do to encourage tourism in this country. He had the gall last February to tell the people of Canada that we are going to come awfully close to balancing our tourism budget. My God, no wonder there is going to be an economic development board set up to stop this kind of nonsense, this kind of ridiculous forecasting.
The government will not even consider an industrial strategy. They are too big, they are too important, they are too all-wise, they are too all-seeing even to consider an industrial strategy. They have been in power now since 1963, and still without an industrial strategy. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) said in his budget speech, page 7:
I am frankly sceptical about the search for a single grand industrial strategy in a competitive market system.
I hope that the President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers is going to ignore these micro murmurings from the Minister of Finance that he does not want a grand industrial strategy. Surely a look at the figures will show that we need some kind of strategy here in Canada to help develop our manufacturing sector.
I can speak for at least ten to 12 hours just on the material given to me by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, with the silly statements he has made since he was appointed in the fall of 1977, but I will just give that as a few examples and move on to this economic development board, so-called. Either this board is a nothing, either it is a camouflage, it is a piece of sleight of hand, it is a shell game, it is the emperor's new clothes, or it is something, and if it is something, if it means anything, it is a devastating indictment of the incompetence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard), the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand), and all the rest of those ministers for the last four years.

If it means anything, it is an admission by the government of a total lack of success in developing our economy in Canada in the last four years. If it is not that, if it is not an indictment of the government, then it is a nothing. It is meaningless. It is what the Prime Minister called it in his speech yesterday after coming back from France, that specious speech of nothingness, the gobbledygook, bureaucratic nonsense, Privy Council colitis, or whatever it was that he made here yesterday. Bureaucratic twaddle!


An hon. Member:: What are you issuing?


John Carnell Crosbie: What did the Prime Minister say on November 24, when he announced that this board was going to be set up? He said that the board is going to consolidate and co-ordinate present and future policies of economic program departments and improve delivery of these programs and services to industry. In other words, there is something wrong with the present delivery of these programs and services to industry, and I can testify to that because the minister has been sitting on my synchrolift now for 12 months.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Your synchrolift?


John Carnell Crosbie: I am coming to that. My synchrolift. My district.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Your synchrolift?


John Carnell Crosbie: My synchrolift that the minister has been sitting on.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Your synchrolift? I will sit on it another 12 months.


John Carnell Crosbie: We down there are not afraid to wait 12 months because in 12 months you will be gone, I will be here, and they will get their synchrolift.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: If the minister wants to discuss the synchrolift, I am going to pass this over. I am tabling this, Mr. Speaker, "What's happened to our synchrolift, Mr. Horner?" Seven hundred Newfoundlanders want me to present this to the minister, and I am going to present it to him later on. Don't let the minister open his mouth about the synchrolift.
The Prime Minister said that the board's review and approval will be required for all economic development proposals going to cabinet and the Treasury Board. That is what the Prime Minister said, so therefore we can take from that that the board must mean something. I am laying all my hopes now on the president of this economic development board. I am not cuddling up to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce any more. I am going strictly with the president of the board because I think he has the power, and he is going to give my synchrolift to my district.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Please don't suggest to anybody that we ever cuddled up.
December 14, 1978


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, what can the country expect when it has a cackling, cracked hulk for a Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce? I suggest that he listen to me, and he would learn a few things here tonight.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I haven't heard anything yet.


John Carnell Crosbie: On November 28 the Prime Minister spoke to the conference of premiers, and he said this:
The Board will have the responsibility to review and approve all programs and policies that directly affect economic development. Its scope will be broad, covering not only secondary industry but also our resource industries-both renewable and non renewable-and service industries such as tourism.
The minister's department is gone, gone, gone with the wind. The minister looks to me something like Vivien Leigh with glasses tonight, because he has gone with the wind.
It will also advise on and co-ordinate broad policy areas that affect economic development, such as regional policies-
The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion's department went like the wind.
-regional policies, R and D and manpower policies. It will be charged with not only co-ordinating the development of policies at the federal level but also improving the delivery of federal programs.
There is nothing left. They are gutted head on. All we are looking at over there is a bunch of heads. They are gutted head on, regional development, IT and C, all the economic departments.
Small business hasn't even got its gonads any more.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: There is nothing left except the Metric Commission. They can share up the Metric Commission between them. Mr. Speaker, have you ever heard of the St. Valentine's Day massacre? This is a St. Valentine's Day massacre of the economic development ministries of this government.


Mr. Abbott:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. When the hon. member sits down, I would like to express a question of privilege.


An hon. Member:: Relax, John, and sit down.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: This diarrhetic stream of consciousness that is going on here has included among it some offensive, unparliamentary comments. While I would not bother to ask the hon. member to try to recall what he has stated-it is beyond recall-I would ask him to be more careful in his comments from now on.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, if I mentioned anything that bothered the minister-it was small anyway-I certainly withdraw it.
When this ministry was set up-I will quote again from the Globe and Mail because it is the Upper Canadian bible and I never go to sleep without referring myself to the Globe and
Economic Development
Mail and having a little bible study in the evening because I know how much it means to Upper Canadians-the Globe and Mail of November 25 reported an interview with the president of the economic development board. He is reported to have said this:
All proposals for economic development will have the approval of my board before they go forward to cabinet-
It is going to have 120 civil servants. It will help industry cut through the red tape in dealing with the federal government.
When the minister speaks-I presume he is going to speak-I hope he will explain how this board is going to cut through the red tape because there were already all these departments, there was already the cabinet committee on economic policy, there was already the Treasury Board, the Privy Council office, and the cabinet secretariat. If you could get through all that, you were chloroformed by the time you got through. Now there is economic development. How is that cutting through red tape? Whether or not the minister can cut through the red tape will depend on whether he can announce the delivery of the synchrolift loan to the St. John's dockyard before Christmas. That will prove to me that he can cut through red tape, and not only red tape, but also political tape.
I will come to that in a minute, if I have enough time. He should explain to the House how he is going to cut through the red tape.
Now I will pick up another article from the bible, the Globe and Mail, of November 25, headed "Economic Board to get pick of bureaucrats". That makes one suspicious. Who would want the pick of the bureaucrats? I must say that the president of the board has a good reputation and I have high hopes for him. I am speaking here tonight in a hopeful and optimistic mood that he will do these things. I discover that the reason this board is set up is that Mr. Osbaldeston of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, according to the new minister, became convinced of the need for a body like the new board. So now we have the explanation, that Mr. Osbaldeston had experience for a year with this minister and he became convinced of a need for a body like the new board.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: The whole board was set up because the minister had been imposed upon Mr. Osbaldeston who was determined to get rid of the minister, so he had to set up a new board to get rid of the new minister, and he became convinced of the need for it. The article states:
Mr. Andras stressed yesterday that it is an "action board, not a talkfest."
I hope it will not be a talkfest, and whether or not it will be a talkfest will depend on whether the $8 million for the St. John's drydock synchrolift is approved before this House adjourns next Thursday. If the president approves it, it will not be a talkfest but an action board.
The article goes on to read:
"There is just one of a hell of a lot to be done," he said.
a
COMMONS DEBATES	December 14, 1978
Economic Development
I like a man who will admit that the government has been here for four years and has left economic affairs in such a state that there is one hell of a lot to be done.
Then the president of the board went on to explain that the Minister of Finance has his hands full. He sure does. He said that the Minister of Finance has his hands full with the dollar in day to day financial problems.
The article goes on to say:
Mr. Trudeau explained that Mr. Chretien will retain macro-economic responsibilities while Mr. Andras takes on the micro-economics sphere.
But this division was less than crystal clear to Mr. Chretien, who became somewhat irritable when reporters asked whether any of his power had been taken away.
You should have seen the poor old Minister of Finance today get up here, with a speech written for him by some bald-headed pate of a civil servant. He said he was delighted to have this new set-up. But he was gritting his teeth. I wish I could have got the full flavour, if I could only understand his language properly, the full flavour of what he was saying. He said:
"The economic policy of the government will still be set by the Minister of Finance," he stated repeatedly. "Micro? Macro? I don't know. I didn't study that too long at school," he quipped sarcastically.
Well, he better start studying it now because the old president of the economic development board knows what it means, yes, sir, and he will find that his role has become somewhat attenuated in stature, because the president of the economic development board, if this means anything, is going to be el supremo, el dictatoro. I may not speak much French, but 1 can speak the Spanish, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to give my own opinion tonight, I want to quote a couple of experts from the newspapers. The Ottawa Journal-a marvellous paper-of December 9, contains the following words: "Andras first among equals". That was always the description of the prime minister until the present Prime Minister came to office. Now we know he is a giant among midgets. But the former president of the treasury board will be first among equals, the old definition of the Prime Minister. So, in effect, he will be the old concept of the Prime Minister, while the Prime Minister will be the new concept of the Prime Minister, which means that nothing has changed.
In an interview the president said, according to the article:
-he is being given extensive power as head of the board ... and he intends to use it if necessary.
I say it will be necessary, Mr. Speaker, because when you look around at the other members of that board who have been doing nothing for the last four years, with the exception of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) who has done something-I had a fine relationship with him and I exclude him from any of my remarks-


Stanley Howard Knowles: You better watch out.
[Mr. Crosbie.J


John Carnell Crosbie: He has a marvellous record.
The president of the board said:
-ministers would have the right to appeal to cabinet if they disagree with his decisions or those of the board. But if rulings are set aside too frequently, the board would have to choose a new head.
Do you get the veiled threat there, Mr. Speaker? I like to see a president of the board who will use a veiled threat. In other words, "If any of you, jerks, perk up, it is you or me." So the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Minister of DREE, and the Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Abbott), as well as the minister of this and the minister of that who are on that board ex officio, or full officio, or half officio, or hopelessly officio, better keep their mouths shut. The President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers will decide what will happen on the board, and I say: congratulations, Andras, super-ass.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I quote from an article by Mr. Don McGillivray-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest the hon. member watch his language.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have your advice.
I have here an article by Don McGillivray from the Montreal Gazette of December 4, headed "Trudeau Shuts Barn Door After The Horse Had Bolted". It is too bad more horses did not bolt. The conclusion is this: the president of the board said no one can be against co-ordination.
The article goes on to say:
But the co-ordination of a whole passel of policies-
The word "passel" was put in here for the hon. rancher from Alberta.
-that are not working is not going to produce an industrial strategy that is.
This is a very succinct and understandable comment. He went on to say that they are going to co-ordinate 23 task forces and second tier reports, and so on. I pity the poor old president-there will be tears in his eyes as he examines the 23 tiers.
McGillivray went on to say:
This is a job handled until now by trade minister Jack Horner, who has clearly been downgraded by the Andras appointment. The new economic development minister was also unconvincing yesterday in his denials that his appointment undercuts part of the authority of finance minister Jean Chretien.
This is an unbiased report of a newspaper columnist of some renown, Mr. McGillivray.
Let us look now at an article by Mr. Wayne Cheveldayoff of the bible, the Globe and Mail, of December 5, 1978, in which he said this:
December 14, 1978

Disappointing Performance
Mr. Trudeau is taking away the responsibility for consultations with labour and business from industry, trade and commerce minister Jack Horner, who is regarded by his cabinet colleagues as having put in a disorganized and disappointing performance.
I would not be that strict, I would not want to hurt the minister's feelings, but I have to do a job here impartially and objectively. Therefore I have to report what has been said.
Mr. Cheveldayoff goes on to say:
Presumably the new board of economic development ministers will be able to present the finance minister with a coherent package of selective tax measures needed for industrial development.
The Minister of Finance does not think this will interfere with his sphere of operations. They are all going to be praying for an election before the next three months are over. There will be more fighting, gouging, elbowing, knee bending and kicking, and I will not mention what will be kicked and gouged, among these gentlemen in the next three months. It will be pitiful. We will have to call for an election on the grounds of humanitarianism. The SPCA will have to be called into the cabinet room to stop what is going on there.
I do not speak as a partisan here. I am speaking as an objective member of this House. Just to show I am non-political, I am going to quote from a political authority who is a Liberal, to show the opinions I have expressed here tonight are agreed with by most of the Liberal party. That gentleman is Mr. John Turner.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: He issued, on July 14, a report on what was happening. He was very prescient. Is that the word? I hope the Hansard reporter will get that one right, prescient. He said:
On the federal front, the government has run its mandate-
Right on. He said:
-the principal economic minister, Jean Chretien, has been hurt by the sales tax brawl and has much less leverage than he had-
He was forecasting the president's appointment. He said:
-there has been a progressive weakening in personnel of the principal economic ministries-
All of that has been borne out.
At page 9 he went on to say the following:
-one cannot rule out a full crisis of confidence in the Canadian dollar.
That has happened. This is the only time Turner has ever been accurate. When he was the minister of finance he certainly was not, but now that he is an objective observer, he is.
He went on to say:
Unfortunately, there is also weakness in some key economic ministries of the federal government. In finance ... the minister has been seriously hurt.
Then he goes on with some other comments, but I do not want to hurt anybody's feelings. At page 10 he said:
-Jack Horner is effectively spending 95 per cent of his time away from the job on his re-election problems. This leaves him a totally inadequate amount of time
Economic Development
to learn and cope with his job, which is evident from a succession of reports on his performance.
He spends 95 per cent of his time away. We are lucky. Thank God! That is the only thing that saved the government in industry, trade and commerce in the last few months.
I am sorry, he goes on trying to butter up the president there. I think he is the man of power.
At page 11 he said this:
In the Treasury Board, where fiscal restraint leadership must come from, the dedication is present but the horses are not.
In other words, the old president had the dedication but he did not have the horsepower.
He said:
Andras has fought and lost too many battles-
Say it is not so.


Robert Knight Andras: It is not so.


John Carnell Crosbie: The president confirms it is not so. We hope it is not so.
He continued:
-because the underlying commitment of the government to its own restraint was lacking, and spending ministers continued to win too much too often.
I will not dwell any more on that. It was just to show that a prominent member of the administration, who left two or three years ago because he wanted to make his fortune in the world-he went to Toronto, the only part of the country which could afford him-has given us these comments. I am glad to see what I am saying tonight is supported by somebody who might be the leader of the Liberal party in the next election. God knows. I mean, the Prime Minister said tonight that he is never going to resign. I believe him, but who knows?
Now, to get on to something that touches my heart deeply, and I have only got a few minutes left-


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I want to give the president two examples of where action is needed immediately. One is: there is a liner-board mill in Stephenville, Newfoundland.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: There was $300 million lost, thanks to Mr. Crosbie.


John Carnell Crosbie: That has been bought now by the Abitibi-Price company.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Crosbie's folly.


John Carnell Crosbie: The minister can get right on this. It is $13.6 million which is required in the form of a DREE grant. The president should brace himself and see that that gets through immediately. I want to give the president a tip. If he wants a precedent for giving $13.6 million-oh, there is the man; he is coming over to tell us it is already approved. I have never had such successful results in one little speech. If the president

December 14, 1978
Economic Development
wants a precedent, there is a mill in the riding of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, St. Lucien, which got $30 million from DREE in the last couple of years.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


John Carnell Crosbie: This is only $13.6 million. Now, I know the minister has got it in his own heart to give out $13.6 million to the linerboard mill in Stephenville. It is going to create something like a 1,000 jobs.


Robert Knight Andras: Tell us how it all started.


John Carnell Crosbie: The minister should ask his friend in Panama. He should go down to Panama on a government jet and ask his friend, Mr. Doyle, who has not paid his taxes yet. He will tell him how it all started.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Tell us how you lost $300 million.


An hon. Member:: Tell us why your riding is going NDP.


John Carnell Crosbie: I do not want you gentlemen to tempt me to speak longer than I intend. I want to give the president of the eco-dev board-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: He may continue with unanimous consent. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Faour).


John Carnell Crosbie: Oh, I thought I had consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I definitely heard a no.


John Carnell Crosbie: I wanted to table this, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe has the floor. The time of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) has expired.


Mr. Fonse Faour (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to follow the type of performance we have just seen. I think it was marvellous that we could be entertained so. Like the hon. member expressed regarding the speaker previous to him, I wish I could follow him in his own language as well. I think the member is trying to create a new language for himself. He has come up with interesting words like "twaddle" and "bureaucratic colitis". There is certainly a new language coming forth. He is doing a magnificent job in entertaining the members of this House. Perhaps

the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation might find him useful in one of its comedy programs.
This was the first time I sat through one of the hon. member's speeches. I must say I was entertained. But I am very concerned. I do not believe the hon. member addressed the problem before us. He did not address the problem of planning, and he did not state his position on the concept of planning which the government put before us today. We see problems with what the government has put before us today. As most hon. members would know, we are committed to a concept of planning. We feel planning is essential to the well-being of the economy of the country. It is essential to set priorities on a national scale so that public resources, and perhaps some private sector resources, can be allocated to areas which need them the most and areas which can be most productive.
The lack of planning on any national scale has given us the present situation. Our dollar is in terrible shape. Inflation is running at close to the double-digit level. The regional disparity situation has not improved over the last ten years, and in fact may have worsened. Unemployment levels are becoming higher and higher. In my part of the country the real unemployment figure is approaching 30 per cent. This 30 per cent figure takes into account the real unemployed. This was supported this week in the figures released by Statistics Canada indicating that there was a huge number of hidden unemployed in the country to whom the government has not addressed itself. These people are being left to the welfare rolls and their own resources because the government refuses to pay attention to them. This entire situation is caused by a lack of planning and a lack of economic priorities on a national scale.
We welcome any approach by the government to plan and set priorities. We wish the proposal before us today was such an approach, that there was some real planning involved, and that it was a commitment on the part of the government to real economic planning. What is the evidence? We see the mechanism the government has put before us as a super ministry. The hon. member who spoke previously emphasized that quite well. But the problem is that there is no overriding priority given to the planning process. There can be conflict between the planning department and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien). When the Minister of Finance presents a budget, he does not have to abide by the plans set by the Board of Economic Development Ministers.
Can we expect this situation to be different from the experience of Great Britain? Approximately 15 years ago that country set up a similar type mechanism for economic planning. After three or four years it found out that the mechanism just did not work because the department of economic planning, or the similar body in Britain, did not have the overriding authority to set an economic plan for the country or to make sure government policy adhered to it.
We believe a commitment to planning is important. Many structural changes are needed in the economy of this country. A good example of how planning can cause structural change in a beneficial manner is the fishing industry in Newfound-
December 14, 1978

land. For years fishermen were telling their sons not to get into the fishing industry because it was no good, there was no money in it, and that they should go to Upper Canada somewhere, or to Alberta. Now the situation is changing.
For the first time probably in hundreds of years the fishing industry holds out hope of being the key to prosperity in the province of Newfoundland. The one thing that has caused the change is organization. The fishermen have organized in the last ten years and the fishermen have themselves imposed a planning mechanism and a set of priorities in that industry. That is what is causing success in the fishing industry today. We can see that economic planning does work.
Setting priorities can bring great benefits to individual sectors of the economy. We see no reason why it should not bring the same sort of benefits to the economy as a whole. It is important to set priorities. If we do not set priorities we get a crazy sort of situation like we had in Stephenville, in my riding on the west coast of Newfoundland, where the linerboard mill has been shut down for more than a year.
At the same time as this linerboard mill has been suffering difficulties, the Export Development Corporation has invested over $900 million in pulp and paper mills abroad. Hon. members have said before that this is only investment and the money is returned, but if this country can find $900 million to invest in undeveloped or under-developed countries like Czechoslovakia, Poland and the United States of America, why in God's name can we not find a few million dollars for a mill that is down here in our own country? There are over 1,000 people unemployed because of that mill being closed down, and the whole situation is caused by a mix-up in the priorities of this government.
This sort of structural change in the fishery and pulp and paper industries, without the sorts of contradictions built in that the Export Development Corporation has precipitated, could only take place if we have economic planning on a national scale. I really question the government's commitment to economic planning when this super ministry is set up with serious defects in it. If the Minister of Finance can usurp the priorities set by that ministry, then we have seen in part the direction the policy will take.
The Minister of Finance in his budget of just a few weeks ago specifically rejected any concept or idea of planning as a way to solve the problems of the economy. With that sort of support for the economic planning ministry, how is it going to work? This just does not make sense.
That budget, as well, would have superseded any of the priorities set by the planning ministry if that ministry had been in effect prior to the budget being laid down. That budget was probably one of the most regressive we have seen in years. It did nothing, not a thing, to alter the basic structure of the economy of the country. It did not address itself to fundamental problems in the economy, the biggest one being unemployment with over one million Canadians unemployed. I guess there are one and a quarter million Canadians unemployed
Economic Development
right now when you include the hidden unemployment statistics that Statistics Canada came up with last week. The minister in his budget speech said we are going to create 100,000 fewer jobs this year than last year. What does this do for unemployment?
Regional dislocation and regional disparity have not changed at all. The budget did nothing in this regard. It probably countered many of the good efforts the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) has made over the last few years because it offered nothing to the poorer regions of the country.
There was the investment tax credit, but there is absolutely no evidence to show that the investment tax credit, over the last five or six years it has been in effect in Atlantic Canada, has had any effect whatsoever in encouraging businesses to set up in that region. That has really been a hollow sort of measure for the Atlantic region.
There are two other main problems in our economy that can be related to foreign control. Canadians do not have control of their own destiny at this time. The budget did nothing in that regard. The big problem which is really at the root of most of our economic ills is that in Canada we are digging resources out of the ground and shipping them raw to foreign countries. The budget did not help this problem at all.
The point I am trying to make is that with this sort of regressive budget set up against an economic planning ministry and taking precedence over it, how can this economic planning ministry have any effect whatsoever? Any planning would attempt to address these problems. I believe that, and I believe the super minister would attempt to address these problems in the new ministry. But, as I mentioned in this case, the budget would have overruled all his great plans.
I would like to look at the record of the government over the last few years, to examine its commitment in the past to planning even in the small areas in which it has engaged in economic planning. The planning has not been effective in solving the problems which it was supposed to solve, not even by those departments set up for that purpose. With my apologies to the hon. minister opposite, I am going to look at DREE as it is set up in Newfoundland.
There have been many dollars come into Newfoundland because of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. DREE was set up to reduce in a planned way the disparities in underdeveloped regions of the country. Speaking from the experience of Newfoundland, DREE has done much good. We have obtained schools, highways, and so on. Basically DREE has approached the problem, in its early days, especially-it has changed a little bit now and maybe the present minister is having some influence-not from a planning point of view, but from an aid-giving point of view and on an aid-giving basis. This has amounted to welfare on a grand scale for provinces like Newfoundland. Receiving aid just does not do anything to solve the basic problems.
I should like to quote from Paul Streeton, a journalist, who said:

December 14, 1978
Economic Development
Receiving aid is like making love to an elephant. It doesn't feel very good, you run the risk of getting crushed, and you don't see the results for a very long time, if ever.
That is what DREE has been. It has just been aid programs over the last nine or ten years it has been in effect. DREE was the culmination of a series of alphabet soup type programs the government set up in the 1960s. We had ADI A, ARDA, FRED, LIP, OFY and a host of others. These were the alphabet soup programs. DREE was basically the culmination of them in an attempt to co-ordinate these policies in one direction.
The concept of planning was introduced, and its stated objective was to redistribute wealth from the have provinces to the have-not provinces, structurally and on an enduring basis. That was the object of DREE when it was set up in 1969. Even though planning was necessary, DREE never moved from the aid type of approach to economic development. If you are going to change the structure of an economy of a have-not province on an enduring basis there has to be some sort of economic planning. This was never done. There were some jobs created, but not enduring employment. There is a real difference, and it is a fundamental difference to which I hope the new ministry will address itself. This certainly is not an example of how the government should address itself to the problem of unemployment and underemployment in places like Newfoundland.
There was an expenditure of mass amounts of dollars, but without planning this large number of dollars spent had a very minuscule effect upon basic problems in the economy of Newfoundland. Let me just quote some figures. Between 1966 and 1970, and 1974 to 1975, there was $185 million spent in the province of Newfoundland, which created 3,400 jobs. In its 1977 report the Economic Council of Canada said that 8,300 jobs, almost triple that number, were needed in the province between 1970 and 1975 to reduce unemployment by even one half of 1 per cent. What DREE has done, if we use the Economic Council's figures as a guide, is reduce unemployment in Newfoundland in that time period by one quarter of 1 per cent. We still have 30 per cent unemployment. Right now there are 45,000 people looking for 900 jobs in Newfoundland. It just has not worked. The DREE money has been used basically for infrastructure, which we need along with schools and highways, but it has not been co-ordinated well.
The transportation system in Newfoundland is sadly lacking. For instance, if the same amount of money had been put into the railway, Newfoundland would have a modern, upgraded railway, instead of the system it has now. Businessmen are not fools. People from the manufacturing industry would be crazy to invest in Newfoundland because it does not have a railway upon which they could depend. If the contributions by DREE to the province had been channeled in a planned way to providing infrastructure like transportation services, the province would be a lot better off. There is much that could be done, although I know that the minister is working on many things, including harbour development.

In spite of the fact that DREE, by necessity and by definition, has had to have a planning approach to its operation, it still does not work. In fact the planning by that department has even been counterproductive in some ways. To illustrate this I would like to quote briefly from the Report of the People's Commission on Unemployment at page 70:
Between 1969 and 1975 DREE spent more than 75 per cent of all its moneys in the province on what the Economic Council of Canada calls "non-rural infrastructure". What this means is that DREE's money has gone to build roads and schools, just as the west coast businessman quoted above suggested.
That refers to a previous quotation. It goes on:
The commission finds nothing wrong with the construction of roads and the building of schools. But we must seriously raise the question as to whether DREE has, through its support for urban development, made our rural areas less competitive in terms of economic development and job creation.
This illustrates that DREE, even though it has not provided substantial benefits to the urban communities in Newfoundland, has contributed in a very detrimental way to the rural areas of that province. It is fortunate for the rural areas that the fishermen's union, through its policies, is making these areas much more viable, because fishermen and fish workers can now stay in the small communities and live a good life there. The Department of Regional Economic Expansion has also provided aid to businesses in the region, but again in the absence of priorities and sound planning we must question its value. In this regard I would like to quote again from the Report of the People's Commission on Unemployment:
However, one still must be aware of the apparent illogic involved in an approach to alleviating regional underdevelopment and worker poverty which begins by giving large sums of money to those who are already well-off and who, if successful, will succeed in increasing their fortunes even more.
I would contend that Canadian development policy, to the extent that it is based on incentive grants to corporations, is trying to combat regional underdevelopment by giving money to those economic interests which are essentially the cause of underdevelopment.
Again, because there has been no sound approach to economic planning, DREE's contributions have had a negative effect in some respects in the province, and in many ways have contributed to factors helping to keep the province underdeveloped.
Through DREE the government has tried to alleviate disparity by planning. It has failed because there has not been a substantial change in relative economic welfare in the various regions of the country, with the exception of Alberta with its oil revenues. Other regions such as the Atlantic region, the Gaspe Peninsula, and so on, seem to have gotten poorer. It is the old story, the rich get rich and the poor get poorer. In light of the high unemployment in these regions, if this approach continues who knows what will happen? The unemployment rate nationally is 8 per cent. If it were 8 per cent in Newfoundland, everybody would jump for joy. Even the official rate of unemployment in Newfoundland is double that figure.
By developing the urban areas, DREE has undermined the ability of the rural areas in the province to support those who live there. We cannot solve the economic problems of Canada by planning which includes only the upper echelons of the economic society. DREE has made massive payments in Newfoundland which in many ways are responsible for the under-
December 14, 1978

development of the province. For example in the fisheries industry, it was only when the fishermen organized themselves and began developing the industry at the grassroots level that they began to see benefits from that industry in the small communities. We must re-evaluate the planning strategy and direction of DREE if we are to have any lasting benefits upon the economy in underdeveloped regions like Newfoundland.
The government's economic planning is just as bad in other areas. It has set up the department of employment, or more aptly it should be called the "department of unemployment." Its purpose was to have a planned approach to the human resources of the country, with the idea of moving people to where the jobs are. It sounded good on the surface, that people could travel from one part of the country to another. Emphasis must be placed on the word "could" as opposed to forced to move. As a result of this type of planning there has been a massive migration of young people from the Atlantic region. I can recall reading statistics some time ago which showed that in the early part of the century, up to the 1930s, approximately one half a million people had left the Atlantic provinces.
The department of employment has set up all sorts of manpower mobility programs, suggesting that people move to Ontario or Alberta, the lands of milk and honey. It just does not work that way. This plan has caused the relocation of thousands of people in this country, the breakup of many families and other major social problems. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) made some comments last week in this regard which I felt were unforgivable, but I will not go into them.
There is, however, an interesting slant to this. I am not one for reading poetry, but I would like to refer to a poem by A1 Pitman, the last line of which I have adapted myself. He is a well-known literary figure in Newfoundland. The poem is about the idea of mobility, forcing people to move, saying that the opportunities are greater elsewhere. The poem reads as follows:
Now here is the gist of this marvellous plan To save all the livyers of this Newfoundland;
Just take one half of the horrible lot And send them to pickle in Canada's pot
Take a daughter, an uncle, some sisters and brothers And put them on barges along with the others And bid them good-by and say now there you go You're going to glory in Ontario
And when you go to see Davis up there Just tell him you're looking to go on welfare Just tell him you're victims of governments' plans Invented in hell and then spread on the land
With apologies to A1 Pitman, Mr. Speaker, that expresses my sentiments exactly on what this mobility is all about. If one wants to say to half of the population of Newfoundland that they should move to Ontario, that is fine, but is not the way to go about economic development. It does not change the problem but just moves it somewhere else.
Economic Development
All the planning that is done in this area ends in exporting people. It has often been said in Newfoundland that, after fish, our main export is our young people. In all parts of the country there are Newfoundlanders working, not necessarily because they want to be in those parts of the country but because of economic necessity. A lot of them leave their families in Newfoundland because they cannot afford to take them to Alberta or wherever they go, and we all know the consequences of that.
The other creature of the department of unemployment is the Canada Works Program, which I have talked about on other occasions. On page 84 of the People's Commission Report there is an interesting comment on the Canada Works program and others like it. The federal and provincial governments were unable to conceive of a strategy of development in the province that was based on- the social and economic traditions of the people. Instead, they performed the role of subsidizing industry, either through granting generous concessions to developers who invested in the province or through using manpower training and mobility schemes to move workers to central Canada.
All we see are programs that beg the question of real economic development in the country. They are stop-gap measures, and they become important in parts of Newfoundland because they are all there is at certain times of the year. They do not solve the problem, however; they provide jobs but not real employment. This is typical of the economic planning that has taken place in the past. Atlantic Canada has been a labour reserve for Ontario and Alberta. Education ministers from the Atlantic region have complained that "we train them, you claim them", when referring to our young people. The Atlantic region has had to subsidize education, to train workers and young people with skills not used there, but that are useful in the western provinces or Ontario.
What has been looked upon as a planned approach to the economy has actually been a direct subsidy to two main groups: first, to industry by give-aways under DREE and other programs and by subsidizing and forcing the mobility of the labour force and, second, to transfer payments, which is probably the most insidious. Forced welfare programs are designed to give purchasing power to people in poorer regions, not out of genuine concern for their situation but so that they have the purchasing power to buy goods made in Upper Canada or in foreign factories. This approach solves nothing. We have to look at the basic structure of the economy. The basic defects of this new super ministry make it impossible for us to have effective economic planning. After ten years of defective planning the government expects us to swallow this super ministry with all its own defects.
On the surface there is no commitment to economic planning. Time and time again we have said we are committed to positive, effective economic planning. We would support the government if we felt the proposal was a commitment to economic planning, but there is no evidence of that. This is just window dressing. The new super ministry will have no power to impose an economic plan on our economy.

December 14, 1978
Economic Development
We support real economic planning, but we believe that implementation is probably more important. Of course there has to be a plan, but implementation is the key to success. We have developed an economic plan based on our view of the Canadian economy. It is not a complete view but is one that we feel represents an approach that would be beneficial to Canada. Of course we would like to see it implemented, and perhaps we will present it to the new super ministry in the hope that this will happen.
I will not take any more of the time of the House, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to say that this super ministry has some definite defects. Its planning potential will be muzzled by the veto of other ministries, the Minister of Finance in particular, if future budgets are as "progressive" as the budget he presented a few weeks ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Hen. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I want to say, to begin with, that I support this proclamation and all it entails, as one of the ministers who fully expects to profit from it.
To be blunt about it, my position, and that of other individual economic ministers, are strengthened by this move. I do not believe in working in cabinet by playing a lone hand. I prefer having allies. When my proposals to assist exports or to further support domestic industries go before cabinet, and they are endorsed by the nine other members of the board, that will strengthen those proposals a good deal. It gives them a strong leg up. Ten ministers of one cast of mind, economic growth-oriented, certainly have a tremendous influence within the cabinet structure.
It only makes sense, sir, to integrate policies that affect economic development and to view those policies as to how they impact on one another. It only makes sense, to me, to consider policies and programs from one basic perspective- how will they help the growth of industry sectors and industries within a specific sector to which they apply. How will they help the growth of the regions, the growth of the general economy? It only makes sense to bring co-ordination and over-all economic development under one roof. And finally, it only makes sense to focus in one place the consultations with provinces, industry and labour, that have taken place in the past under a variety of ministers.
I look upon this as being similar to the things I have seen in Germany and Japan. Those countries have paid a great deal of attention to their industrial thrust since the Second World War. They fully believe that industry is the engine that makes the standard of living that they enjoy possible. When one travels to Germany and sees-
[Editor's note: Whereupon a stout gentleman, dressed in red, with white fur trim, entered the chamber, exclaiming, "Ho, ho, ho!'']


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, as a minister participating in this economic board, I certainly want the House to know that I am no Santa Claus.
In Germany they pay a great deal of attention to industry because they believe it is the engine that provides the quality of life they want. In order to do business you have to join the chamber of commerce in Germany; if you are on that side you have to join their industrial board. In Japan, there is a board of industry composed of senior industrialists, called the Kei-danren, and the government pays a great deal of attention to the needs of industry there. I look on this new thrust as being somewhat similar in purpose. The government is demonstrating to industry that industry is important to the economic well-being of this country. Industry will make possible the social services we all want, as Canadians, to enjoy, and which can be provided as long as the proper amount of assistance is available.
My department will continue its normal activities. We shall continue to propose policies designed to benefit industry. For example, I am launching two major consultative exercises with business and labour. One is to assess and make recommendations upon the efficacy and scope of the services and policies provided by government to assist exporters. A blue ribbon committee of business and labour leaders will be headed by Mr. Roger Hatch, president of Canpotex. Its membership is representative of our exporting industries and of our regions. I am looking to this committee for strong recommendations as to how we in the federal government, together with provincial governments, can improve our performance in supporting exports.
Some hon. members have asked why this should be done now. I think it is important that the House should recognize the reason for the action we are taking at this time. We are entering upon what will perhaps prove to be the most competitive era in Canada's recent history. The years ahead will be tremendously competitive for any industrialized nation and we must address ourselves to this task. The new ministry will, I hope, be successful in furthering the liberalization of trade.
Canada depends a great deal on its ability to sell abroad. As I have pointed out on past occasions, approximately 25 per cent of our gross national product is derived from exports. If hon. members want to relate that figure to the Japanese experience I can tell them that 13 per cent of Japan's gross national product is related to exports. In the United States, the figure is 7 per cent or 8 per cent. We have to meet the competitive forces which will be upon us in the eighties, which means we shall have to attach greater importance to the role of industry in our economy. I look upon this new departure as signifying to industry that we are there to help them and that we have the power within the cabinet to make certain that the engine moves well and provides Canada with the resources to accommodate people with the standard of living we believe they should be able to afford.
December 14, 1978

I mentioned I was going to set up two task forces. The other group, consisting of senior private sector leaders, is taking on a very important task. Its members represent a cross section of firms, both large and small, in the Canadian resource and manufacturing industry. This task force is meant to assist Canadian companies to win contracts arising from the major industrial and energy projects which are about to come on stream in Canada; it will work with and make recommendations to both federal and provincial governments.
This country is launching upon a series of very large projects worth billions of dollars. The Canadian section of the Alaska pipeline is one-it has already been mentioned in this debate. Mr. Speaker, that is worth $4.3 billion in contracts for design engineering, steel, and a host of supplies ranging from manufactured products to food, transport and other services.
Other large projects planned in the fields of electrical generation, mining, forestry, petroleum and petrochemicals over the next decade are expected to exceed in value $50 billion in construction work. These Canadian projects can provide a large majority of Canadian contracts and jobs, located, as they are, in northern Canada, on the west coast, the prairies, central Canada and Atlantic Canada. They are a vast and varied market for Canadian industry. Canadian designers, engineers, consultants and services, manufacturers and steel plants must win the majority of contracts in competitive bidding.
Without ordering the placing of contracts by government decree, without intervening in a way which would contravene international trade practices and perhaps get us into a great deal of trouble with our trading partners, the bottom line is that the large majority of industrial benefits must go to Canadians. This is important for the immediate contracts and jobs involved. It is equally important in terms of new technology, new skills, and ability to merge into effective consortia to tackle large and complex projects, all of which are necessary if Canadians are to succeed in that competitive bidding role.
The task force of the 25 business leaders and senior labour representatives working with the provincial and federal governments is charged with identifying means to ensure that we get those contracts and those jobs. It will identify and communicate in advance the opportunities which are expected so that Canadian companies may know what they should be competing for. It will make recommendations concerning procurement by governments. It will make recommendations with regard to government policies which can be supportive of the objective. It will take a look at ways in which companies pool their talents and abilities to take on new and larger tasks.
From time to time we hear members complain about imports of manufactured goods into this country. They ask what the government is doing about it. This task force will be looking at that situation to encourage the Canadian manufacturing sector to meet better the challenges of supply-to increase the supply of steel, electrical generators and other equipment necessary to the huge projects which will be started between now and the year 2000. The other task force has, of course, been set up to assist in meeting challenges in world
Economic Development
trade. This is our way of supporting Canadian industry both at home and abroad.
I am pleased that the Canadian Commercial Corporation will now be in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, which is where it should be. I certainly believe it can play an aggressive role in assisting the private sector to seek contracts with foreign governments. It fits logically within my department; so rather than losing power through the recent shuffle my department has, in fact, gained power. It is not sufficiently realized, especially by hon. members opposite, that we provide about $3.7 billion worth of support for Canadian industry every year, three quarters of which goes to encourage Canadian exports.
Some hon. members wonder what I have been doing this year. Well, the Enterprise Development Program has recently been doubled and the EDP loan guarantee ceiling has been raised from $350 million to $1 billion. We have set up advisory boards in every province to make certain that both small and large industries are aware of the assistance the EDP can give them. Some hon. members may have noticed in the papers today an announcement that the board is to lend money to establish two-way trade between Nova Scotia and British Columbia.


Mr. Forrestall:: What about the reciprocal part of it?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I think it is a very good project. If the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) does not like it, he should speak up.


J. Michael Forrestall: I will speak up.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am certainly pleased that my department can play a role in assisting the steel industry. The Export Development Corporation has had its funding capacity expanded from $9 billion to $26 billion. No one on that side thought it was a good idea. They complained bitterly, holding it up for a month in this House. They said it would ruin Canada. They did not trust the people to whom the money was being loaned.


J. Michael Forrestall: Balderdash.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Read the speeches. The Federal Business Development Bank did a tremendous amount of business this past year. Last month they increased their lending to Canadian industry to about $61 million. They loan about 25 per cent to Canadian manufacturing industries, about 25 per cent to the tourist industry, and about 25 per cent to the wholesale and retail and other industries. They do a great deal of business. They have been stepped up a great deal in their lending ability. The Federal Business Development Bank is the largest single source of venture capital in Canada.


J. Michael Forrestall: The left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am telling you now what is being done to help Canadian industry within Canada. The hon. member for St.

December 14, 1978
Economic Development
John's West (Mr. Crosbie) warbled on with quotations from my speeches. It pleased me a great deal to find that somebody over there is reading what I say. That is more than they did when I was a member of that party.
I find the hon. member's speeches quite humorous. I had the honour of speaking at the nomination of the hon. member for St. John's West. I was quite interested in that cabinet minister who was quitting the Newfoundland government and wanting to come to Ottawa. He had been a cabinet minister in the Liberal government, and a cabinet minister in the Conservative government. I was interested to see what kind of an animal he was, and whether or not he could make a contribution in Ottawa. His speech tonight convinced me that he can make a contribution in Ottawa, as an entertainer in some night club. However, he is hardly a serious-minded person representing that province.
The hon. member talked about economic development. He was a member of the famous government which got into more economic difficulties than any government in recent times. He was minister of finance of the government which financed the linerboard factory that ran up a debt of some $300 million. No wonder the present Premier of Newfoundland was glad to get rid of him, as I found out that night when speaking at his nomination meeting in Newfoundland.
The hon. member for St. John's West complains because I have suggested that when the United States economy picks up, it will definitely help us. Is the hon. member not aware that the President of the United States has suggested that United States industry bring in voluntary wage and price controls? The president of that country seems to think they have economic troubles. Is the hon. member not aware that the United States will chalk up the biggest merchandising deficit in the history of that country? On the other hand, we will chalk up the largest merchandising trade surplus in the history of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member talked about a synchrolift drydock in St. John's. I am a very strong supporter of that. As I explained to the hon. member the other day, we need to have the money before we can spend it. In the budgetary cuts announced in August, there were some cuts in the transfer payments. When we no longer have those cuts, I am certain Treasury Board will approve the synchrolift for the people of Newfoundland and of Canada, not for the hon. member for St. John's West. It will not be his synchrolift. He has done nothing but hinder our ability to get it through.
From time to time I become amused with the party opposite. In Committee the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) stated that we should do away with the Dash-7. He suggested that we scrap it, that we cancel the program and get out of de Havilland altogether. At the time he said that, we were employing approximately 3,700 people in de Havilland. That will go to 4,500 and then to 5,000.
I recently announced the sale of 13 planes, mainly to the United States. If one can sell in that market, one can sell

pretty near anywhere in the world. There are options on 20-some Dash-7 planes. These are being manufactured at the rate of one a month. In order to meet the demand, this will have to be increased to four a month.
Because of the demand, it has been necessary to put out subcontracts. Estimating the subcontracts for the manufacture of 200 planes, approximately $600 million in subcontracts will be let. That is because de Havilland cannot handle all the work the Dash-7 will bring to Canada, nearly 85 per cent of it for export.
Hon. members opposite say they are tired of hearing Horner talking about optimism and thinking positively about the air industry in Canada, which is high technology. They certainly would not admit that. They had a big laugh in this House about Canada Air and its plane. That is a fabulous airplane. It has flown extensively. Over 130 of these airplanes have been sold. Employment has increased in that factory. Approximately 99 per cent of the planes built will be exported. Within the next five years, that one plane will provide 50,000 jobs for Canadian workers. Therefore we are making tremendous strides in what might be called highly technical industries which will certainly bring great rewards to Canadian workers.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in this House unashamedly as a Roman Catholic. However, it is my fervent hope that I will always use my position to defend with equal vigor and sincerity the integrity of any religious denomination which I feel has been impugned.
As to the point in question, on November 3, 1978, as reported at page 771 of Hansard, I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) if her department had funded the publication of the fall, 1978 edition of the Planned Parenthood Federation newsletter. She replied that funds from her department were used strictly for the operation of that federation's national office.
By sad coincidence, the editorial address given on the newsletter is, in fact, the national office of the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada; in other words, as the minister herself stated, the office from which the offensive missive has been
December 14, 1978

transmitted operates, thanks only to funds from the federal Department of National Health and Welfare.
I would like the House to consider for a second what is offensive in this missive. The subject of the newsletter is abortion, and it is a subject open to debate which would go on much longer than the seven minutes allotted to me. However, in my view and in the view of millions of Canadians, abortion is killing. It is the taking away of life. I will not go into that point of debate.
The point I am making is about this particular newsletter of the fall of 1978. Articles in various newspapers, mainly Canadian, by the way-the Globe and Mail, very often the Toronto Star, the Ottawa Journal and the Ottawa Citizen- are interpreted as being in favour of abortion. Among all the quotations in newspaper articles there appears one entitled "Pro life isn't". There is some recognition given to the author of this editorial. It is quoted as being the National Catholic Report of July of 1978.
A tiny bit of checking on my part-it did not take very much-proved to me that this so-called National Catholic Report comes from the United States in the first place. Despite the fact that it is national in a large country like the United States, it has a circulation of less than 46,000. By national standards that is an extremely small circulation. Therefore someone in Canada would have to undertake a certain amount of research to find that particular article. He would probably have to make a few international telephone calls.
The article in question was written by a Catholic. A little more research on my part revealed that the publication to which I referred is a Catholic newspaper, but it is written by a certain dissident group from the Catholic church and in no way-and this is the point to be made-does it respect or reflect the traditional view of the real Catholic church.
If the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada wanted to find out what Catholics think of abortion, it could have gone to L'osservatore Romano, if it understood Italian. The federation could have asked me for a translation. If the federation did not ask me, it could have gone to the Catholic Register or to many other Catholic newspapers in Canada, none of which would ever, ever have given the impression that pro-abortion people are Catholic or that Catholics do not give a damm about people who are born.
The only concern of Catholics, according to this article, would be to save the four-month fetus, and to hell with four-year old child living in squalor. That is a travesty. It impugns the integrity of every Catholic. I do not know whether the author is Canadian or American. I do not know his or her nationality, but what is the motivation? That is what we have to ask ourselves. What is the motivation for going to a very small, little read, dissident Catholic newspaper, and then printing this rubbish, this garbage, as if it were something from the Vatican?
This newsletter obviously is of no moral value at all. They do not know the meaning of the word religion. Why did they
Adjournment Debate
print it in the first place? Who is funding this publication? The minister said that federal funds were used only for the organization of the national office. We have already found that the national head office is the place from which this spurious paper emits. What does the funding do for the organization? It pays for rent, electricity, and for staff. For the minister, with all due respect, to tell me, "No, we do not fund this subliminal anti-Catholic message" is, I suggest, an insult to my intelligence.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. lady but the time allotted to her has expired.


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking tonight on behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Robinson) who is unavoidably absent.
At the start of my remarks I should like to say, in response to the hon. member for York South (Mrs. Appolloni), how much respect I have for her. I also want to put on the record, for her information and that of other members of the House, that, being a Catholic myself, I have great respect for the points she brought forward tonight. However, further to the minister's response of November 3, 1978, to the question of the hon. member for York South concerning the fall 1978 edition of the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada newsletter which, as she commented, contained "despicable and insidious innuendo which vilifies the entire Catholic church," I would like to make the following remarks.
I have had the opportunity to review this particular publication and I saw no remarks directed at the Catholic church. In the provincial-territorial news section of the newsletter-the section in which there are references to the Roman Catholic church-it is reported that Planned Parenthood Yukon has co-sponsored with the Roman Catholic parish, workshops for parents. There is also a reproduction of newspaper clippings, one from the Globe and Mail of April 25, 1978, and the other from the National Catholic Reporter of July 14, 1978, both of which mention the Catholic church.
One article reproduced from the Globe and Mail of April 25, 1978, outlines the position put forth by the Chancellor of the Roman Catholic archdiocese of Toronto which calls for mandatory instruction and testing on how to be good parents for all couples planning marriage. The other reproduced news clipping which refers to the Roman Catholic church appeared on the editorial page and was drawn from the National Catholic Reporter of July 14, 1978. The editorial states in part:
There is something wrong in the pro-life movement that causes many Catholics concerned about peace and justice-life-to look askance, or grieve about the misdirected energy. The national "right-to-life" movement isn't "pro-life" at all-it's anti-abortion. The self styled "pro-life" movement, therefore, whatever the attitudes of individual members, comes through in a single-focus frenzy, apparently lacking Christian understanding regarding life in general. There are individual pro-lifers whose cares are larger, but they are scattered, and so is their impact.

December 14, 1978
Adjournment Debate
The editorial continues in this manner.
In addition, there are 30 or more other reproductions of press clippings of Canadian and American newspapers.
As can be seen, the references to the Roman Catholic Church are contained in reproductions from highly regarded newspapers or based on material from other publications, such as the National Catholic Reporter.
For the record, I would like to make it quite clear that the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada has, over the years, constantly provided a high quality of family planning services. Associations of the type set forth by the hon. member for York South can only foster misunderstanding and hard feelings in the groups genuinely interested in promoting responsible parenthood.
In principle, the Department of National Health and Welfare does not control the content of the publication of the voluntary agencies it funds. In particular, the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada newsletter has been dignified in tone, content, and reflects responsible work done by dedicated volunteers promoting responsible parenthood.


SPORTS-CANADA'S PARTICIPATION IN MOSCOW OLYMPICS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, on November 9 I rose in my place to ask the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mrs. Campagnolo) the following question:
Our own House last week passed a unanimous resolution expressing our concern for the abridgement of freedom of thought and expression in the Soviet Union as demonstrated by those trials.
In view of the upcoming 1980 Olympics to be held in Moscow, could you tell me whether there are any plans in your department to re-examine our country's position vis-a-vis participation in the Moscow Olympics?
The answer of the minister was so twisted that it looked like a pretzel. She said the following:
-I am quite prepared to accept that there be sport boycotts when related to sport, but when the matter is outside the realm of sport I do not feel the sport should be used as an instrument through which retaliation is executed.
The minister directed a letter to me dated November 10, 1978, which reads in part as follows:
-in principle, we consider that sport should not be used as a political instrument except in cases where the matter in question directly affects sport, as apartheid does.
The minister is living in an Alice in Wonderland world.
I should like to refer to an article which appeared in the November 12 edition of the New York Times. It was written by Yevgeny Rubin, a former sports writer for the Soviet Union. In part it reads as follows:
Soviet sport is a facade, or the brightest, loudest and most glaring part of the facade. Athletes-strong, agile, tanned and invincible-are supposed to person-nify the Soviet way of life to the world, including their own people. With each record, each victory, each goal, the athlete is supposed to demonstrate that the Soviet people are the strongest, the fastest and the most graceful.
(Mr. Harquail.J
If that is not politics in sport, I should like to know what it is. The minister implied that she had nothing to do with the decision, that it is the Canadian Olympic Committee which makes the decision. But she has a lot to do with the funding which goes to that committee, its grants, or the withholding of grants. All one has to do is ask Mrs. Koop whether that is the case. The incredible answer of the minister reflects her naivete. If anything, the minister has raised the concept of apartheid and not I. Since the minister raised apartheid, I will refer to it. The minister ought to know that all legal restrictions in the country of South Africa have been withdrawn from apartheid. I am not saying that it has been withdrawn in the countryside, but certainly the legal barriers have been withdrawn from the legislation.
I have seen the pain which apartheid brings. I have seen some of that anguish. I realize the pain of the hundreds of workers from Mozambique who work in the deep mines of South Africa, live in fetid dormitories, and are kept from their families for 11 months of the year. The same thing is true in Russia where people are kept in forced labour camps in Siberia, in the freezing cold of Siberia, for 12 months out of the year, and are never allowed to see their families. All one has to do is read the book entitled "A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" to know something about that cruelty.
I have seen some of the incredibly cruel and unjust treatment of the millions of blacks in South Africa who are not allowed to hold citizenship or own property. That is true also in Russia where the property of dissenters is seized. They are drafted into the army so that they cannot leave the country. Is one better than the other? One is just as cruel as the other. I remind the minister that pain does not recognize the colour of skin. All races in South Africa be they coloured, white, Indian or black, are made in the image of God. They deserve to be treated in dignity and with the dignity all God's creations deserve. If that is true of South Africa it is certainly true of those people in Russia who have convictions and feelings they ought to be able to express, and they ought to be able to find expression for their convictions every day of their lives.
Ask all those people we have talked about in this House how they feel about this. If the policy of detente of this government and of other western governments is designed to break down the barriers between us and the Eastern bloc countries in respect of all of those things that are repugnant in that present system, why should that policy not work in other countries where there is another kind of discrimination?
Would it be too much to ask this government just once to carry on a consistent policy in this matter? Even better yet, would it be too much to take politics out of sports altogether and allow athletes from all around the world to compete without any government controls or restrictions?
I am not fighting against Canadian participation in the Olympics in Moscow or in any other city in the world. All I am asking this government to do is recognize that pain is universal, and it does not matter whether it is in a Russian
December 14, 1978

concentration camp, a Russian insane asylum, or in a South African mine. All I ask this government is to start being consistent in its policy.


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is obviously aware that the immediate responsibility for Canada's participation in the Moscow Olympics rests with the Canadian Olympic Association and not with the federal government. The Canadian Olympic Association solicits private sector funding through the Olympic trust. In addition, funds are provided to the association by the fitness and amateur sports branch as part of its program of assistance to sports associations to ensure participation by high performance Canadian athletes at international competitions.
The need to avoid government intervention in the affairs of autonomous sport associations such as the Canadian Olympic Association is recognized and respected by many groups in Canada.
In the circumstances which we currently face regarding the abridgement of freedom of thought and expression in the Soviet Union, we do not consider the Olympics to be an appropriate forum in which to express our views on human rights in the U.S.S.R.
I am rather amazed that the hon. member should state we should keep politics out of sport, while at the same time asking whether the Government of Canada would prevent participation in the Olympics by Canadian athletes. I cannot reconcile those two statements by the hon. member.
I believe you will find, Mr. Speaker, our policy consistent with the government sport boycott of South Africa. The United Nations in 1971, 1975, 1976 and 1977 adopted a series of resolutions calling on all member states to refuse any sponsorship, assistance, or encouragement of sporting contacts with South Africa. Canada supported all those resolutions.
At this time no such international reservations exist with regard to a sport boycott of the U.S.S.R. and, therefore, in reply to the question of the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen), the fitness and amateur sport branch does not believe it appropriate at this time to alter its position vis-a-vis participation in the 1980 Moscow Olympics.


NATIONAL REVENUE-SALES TAX REBATE ON INVENTORIES OF MANUFACTURED GOODS
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, the subject of my grievance tonight arises from the budget announcement on November 16 by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) regarding the reduction of the 12 per cent federal sales tax to 9 per cent.
I posed a question to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Abbott) in the absence of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien). This was on December 8, and I would like now to read that question:
Adjournment Debate
Considering the certainty of great financial loss to certain businesses such as automobile and machinery dealers who have substantial inventories on which the old 12 per cent sales tax has been paid, will the minister indicate whether he is considering some form of adjustment in the sales tax formula that would minimize the financial loss of those businesses?
The Minister of Finance said in his speech on November 16, "I want this passed on to the consumers". I speak tonight on behalf of automobile and machinery dealers and businesses with other inventories subject to the reduction in this tax. I say to the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of Finance that this is a very cavalier and deceptive approach to this question on the part of the government.
Just because the government is almost bankrupt, that is no reason why it should also bankrupt the retail dealers of this country. When the minister says he wants to pass this 3 per cent reduction on to the consumers, his approach should be honest and fair to everyone. He should recognize that the automobile and machinery dealers of this country should be compensated for the reduction they will have to make in their inventory prices.
I have with me two good examples, borne out in letters from dealers in my riding who will suffer losses as a result of this action by the government. The first letter is from Pringle's Service Ltd. in Napanee. It reads:
Dear Doug:
I am writing you to express my deep concern over the effect the recent federal sales tax reduction has had on me as a small businessman, as well as thousands of small businessmen, like myself, all across Canada.
Although I heartily applaud the government's initiative to lower federal sales tax, albeit long overdue, the immediate effect of this change is myself being caught with over 60 new cars and trucks that are, on the average, $175 overpriced. If I don't reprice my stock, customers will not buy from stock, but rather order the same vehicle from the factory at the new lower price. But to reprice my entire stock means writing off $10,000.
As it now stands, the Canadian car dealers are left holding a multimillion dollar price tag. As a small businessman, I resent this indirect budgetary subsidization. Since the November 16 budget speech, my firm has been unable to sell a new 1979 vehicle out of stock.
I urge you to push for a 3 per cent federal sales tax rebate of instock vehicles for small businessmen like myself right across our nation.
It is signed Larry A. Pringle.
I would like to quote from another letter I received from Revell Motor Sales Limited in Verona, Frontenac County. The letter is addressed to myself and includes the copy of a telegram sent to the Minister of Finance on November 27. It reads:
Dear Mr. Alkenbrack:
Re: Budget-Federal Sales Tax Reduction.
Please Find listed below a copy of a telegram we have sent to the Minister of Finance.
We feel heavily penalized by this tax reduction as this will cost us in excess of $22,000.
I, a businessman, do not feel I should have to subsidize your tax cut.
Our customers are waiting for the lower priced vehicles and I am left with over one hundred (100) vehicles in inventory and at 12.50 per cent interest rate, I feel this is a severe and unnecessary penalty to car dealers over other retailers.
Rebates of this nature were granted in 1961, 1968 and 1974 and should certainly be granted again at this time.
2164

December 14, 1978
Adjournment Debate
As our net profit is less than 2 per cent, we feel we cannot afford this. We need your immediate attention to this matter.
Yours truly,
H. M. Revell Revell Motor Sales Limited
If the minister wants these reductions passed on to the consumer, he should give each dealer credit for the savings that he has had to pass on to his customers. It is not difficult to do.
Both the Minister of Finance and Minister of National Revenue have complained about the tremendous amounts of money and very numerous accounts that would have to be serviced. But every automobile manufacturer has a computerized record of every dealer's inventory on November 16, which was the date of the minister's announcement, and through this they have the ability to make an accurate total of tax reductions and/or rebates that should be credited to the dealer as he sells an automobile to his customer.
I appreciate that some adjustment has been made in the time of transit of automobiles from factories to dealers as of November 16, but that is not enough.
Both the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue have pointed out that it would cost many millions of dollars to rectify this problem. This government ought not to have made the automobile and machinery dealers of Canada pay for this aberration on the part of the government.
I reiterate, there is a precedent for a rebate in the 1974, 1968 and 1961 budgets. Let the minister now be fair and follow those precedents.
I note, Mr. Speaker, in the proceedings of today the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling) has obtained an agreement from the Minister of Finance to meet with a delegation of representatives of the Automobile Dealers of Canada, and I say let the government and that delegation work together to right this inequitable situation, and this gross example of unfair financial discrimination against a very important segment of our economy, the Canadian automotive retailers.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the government has received a number of representations from auto dealers and others concerning recovery of tax which had
been paid on goods in their inventories on budget night. The matter has received careful consideration.
It is customary for changes in sales and excise taxes on commodities to come into effect on the day following the budget announcement. The government was aware that there would be goods in the hands of wholesalers and retailers on budget night on which the tax had been paid at the 12 per cent rate. However, the government did not propose a refund of the difference between the tax previously paid at the old rate and the new rate. This would be difficult to do in a fair way because of the wide range of products and the large number of retailers and distributors involved.
Questions have been raised by hon. members and by some auto dealers concerning refunds which were paid to auto dealers in 1958 and 1961, and to retailers of heavy trucks in 1974, when taxes were reduced on these vehicles. The measures introduced in those years were specifically oriented toward the automotive and transportation equipment industries. The decisions to pay refunds in respect of tax paid inventories were taken in the context of the exceptional circumstances which had focused the tax cuts on the motor vehicle industry.
The situation today is not the same. The recent reduction in federal sales taxes affects a broad range of taxable goods. It was not specifically directed toward any one industry.
Hon. members will appreciate that it would be difficult to provide relief for tax-paid inventory for the auto industry without providing similar relief for all goods held in inventories in Canada. A general provision to provide refunds to wholesalers and retailers holding tax-paid inventories at the time of the budget would result in a substantial revenue loss. Furthermore, it would be difficult to do so in an equitable manner because of the large number of products and traders involved.
The budget bills will be before the House shortly. The hon. member will then be able to bring forward an amendment which would take into account the difficulties I have outlined tonight.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.31 p.m., without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.



Friday, December 15, 1978