1978-12-13

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has not yet made a decision, or has made no move, with respect to underwriting the cost of repairs to AHOP houses in St. John's which are necessary because of faulty inspection, faulty material and improper workmanship, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie):
That this House directs Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to underwrite immediately the full cost of repairs to the affected units of the Assisted Home Ownership Program subdivision known as Virginia Park, in St. John's, Newfoundland, which repairs are necessary because of faulty inspections and the use of faulty material.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for debate 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.


INCENTIVES TO INCREASE PRODUCTIVITY-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.
In order to overcome our trade deficit of $12.5 billion a year in fully manufactured products, the ones which produce jobs, we must improve our productivity. To do so, we must offer incentives which will persuade producers that they will be able to pay for the new plant, machinery and production systems they will have to buy in a reasonably short space of time and in this way make it as easy as possible for them to make the usually high expenditures involved.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski):
That the government allow, first, that all capital expenditures involved in improving productivity be written off in one year; and, second, that a plant be rewarded in the form of a generous cash bonus at the end of the year in direct proportion to its increase in productivity during the year.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), I move:
That this House protests the action of VIA Rail in notifying a number of Canadian National employees that they will be dismissed when the CN's passenger service is taken over on December 29, contrary to the provisions of the collective agreement covering such employees, and that this House calls on the Minister of Transport to take steps to make sure that these dismissals do not take place.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for debate can be done only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and seek the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a motion relating to a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.

December 13, 1978
Given the fact that the federal government has decided to make cuts in its language teaching program and that these cuts will cause the dismissal of 600 teachers, and also given the fact that the federal government intends to give out contracts to private institutions and that this will probably cost even more to the taxpayers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That the House instruct the federal government to revise its budgetary cuts policy in the linguistic training program, a service which is essential to the public who is entitled to be served in both official languages of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, presentation of such a motion for debate requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the French news service of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation does not have as many reporters as its English counterpart, thereby creating an imbalance at the expense of Francophone Canadians, even though the quality of news reporting is outstanding on the French network thanks to such reporters as Derome, Rivard, Racine and others who could do better still were it not for a shortage in personnel, I move, seconded by the hon. member for West-mount (Mr. Johnston):
That the minister in charge of the CBC (Mr. Roberts) make representations to this Crown corporation with a view to increasing the number of reporters and the period allocated to news reporting on the French network, so that more time may be devoted to reporting news of national interest concerning French-speaking Canadians.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Noting that the study of the Department of Finance of the Canadian and United States tax systems is based upon such strange premises as that, for example, Canadian transfer payments are subtracted from the Canadian gross tax burden before the tax burden in Canada is compared with that in the United States and, further, that the study itself refers to five difficulties with the comparability of data and two difficulties with the definition of the words "tax burden,'' I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens):
That the study entitled "The Tax Systems of Canada and the United States" be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs so that that committee may assess the intellectual integrity of the study and determine whether the study forms an appropriate basis upon which to develop future federal economic policies.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mrs. Jean E. Pigott (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In light of the fact that mortgage defaults under the Assisted Home Ownership Program are now approximately 10 per cent, and in light of the fact that 35 per cent, or 53,000 AHOP units, remain vacant across Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway):
That this House directs the minister of housing and urban affairs to recall the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs so that it can begin an investigation into this serious AHOP crisis.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be introduced for debate only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
December 13, 1978


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
It was announced yesterday by the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) that $280 million will be expended over a five-year period for prison construction. In view of the fact that a unanimous report by the parliamentary subcommittee on the penitentiary system in Canada lies in almost total neglect and that these proposed construction plans fly in the face of the subcommittee's recommendations, in view of the fact that in August, 1977, the then solicitor general had accepted and was implementing 53 of the subcommittee's recommendations, and in February, 1978, the next solicitor general announced he was implementing 37 recommendations and in the latest report the present Solicitor General tells us that he has implemented only 22 of these recommendations, a number of those deemed implemented being questionable, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That a moratorium be placed on all prison construction until all 65 recommendations of the subcommittee on the penitentiary system in Canada are fully implemented.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance: it touches on the general deterrents which the minister appears to be putting into our economic fibre that are discouraging economic prosperity in the country. I refer to the fact that presumably under the minister's guidance the Bank of Canada is now taking steps to increase further interest rates in Canada.
Would the minister indicate and try to justify to the House why he feels higher interest rates are warranted, bearing in mind that for every half-point he bumps up the rates in the country it is costing the average home owner, over the life of his mortgage, $5,000 and in the aggregate it is costing businessmen, for every half-point increase, $375 million. How does the minister justify that?
Oral Questions


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, Bank of Canada policies are announced regularly when there are changes in interest rates. The Bank of Canada has not changed its rates lately, they are the same as before and the prime rate at Canadian banks is exactly the same as last month. As for the short term market fluctuations, the Bank of Canada has to take action from time to time, but that has no effect on interest rates for people usually borrowing on the market.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, surely the minister realizes it is not just a question of the Bank of Canada tampering with the bank rate: it has intervened in the sense of selling treasury bills with the deliberate purpose of raising short-term rates in the country. The government has stated publicly that the reason it is doing so is to somehow or other put our interest rate structure in better balance with U.S. interest rates.
Can the minister tell us, if we have a floating dollar as he has assured us we do, why he is still worried about the interest rate level domestically in Canada as compared with that in the United States?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I have said many times that the interventions of the bank are to make sure that fluctuations of the Canadian dollar take place in an orderly way. It is very important for Canadians to maintain a competitive level of interest rates with the United States if we are not to see an outflow of capital from Canada to the United States.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Once again, the Minister of Finance has carefully avoided dealing with the heart of the problem, that is, the current account deficit. It is absolutely foolhardy to be adjusting our interest rate structure and to be borrowing further capital funds such as the minister is hinting at if we permit the current account deficit to continue. Would he indicate to the House what plans he has to correct the current account deficit which is accelerating, not contracting, year by year?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I think the hon. member would realize, if he read the information that is public, that in 1978 we will have in Canada a record surplus in trade. In fact, in the first three quarters of the year the current account deficit was $200 million less than last year.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Small Business), arising from some counterproductive moves to which the government has been resorting recently.
2076

December 13, 1978
Oral Questions
In the last budget, the government cast a net so carelessly in order to remove certain groups of individuals from the small business tax rate that it caught, in that blundering net, tens of thousands of legitimate, one-man small business operations, including independent insurance and real estate brokers. I should like to ask the minister the definition which applies to those receiving the small business tax deduction, When will small businessmen learn of this definition? When does the government expect to introduce legislation dealing with this subject matter?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State (Small Business)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should appreciate, since he has been in this House for four years, that this matter emanates from the budget and is directly the concern of the Minister of Finance who will introduce the detailed provisions in due course.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I have been here over six years and I hope to be here a little longer. I wonder why the small business ministry is in existence, when the Minister of State for Small Business never answers questions related to small business.
I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he could tell small business people, confused as a result of the announcement in the budget, the definition of "small business" for tax purposes. When will this legislation come before the House? There is utter confusion within the small business sector today as a result of the confusion of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, when we make changes in the cabinet we have to draft the legislation consequent upon that change. On budget night we gave as much explanation as possible at the time. Within the next few days I hope to be able to present the legislation resulting from the budget I tabled less than a month ago.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I have one very short supplementary question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: They do not take small business seriously.


Otto John Jelinek: 1 thank hon. members opposite. Surely when the minister made the announcement in the budget he must have been aware of those within the small business sector who would be included in the tax deduction. Will he tell the House and small businessmen from coast to coast who those small businessmen are?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, in reply to a question by one of my colleagues the other day in the House I said that those who are bona fide businessmen in Canada will not be affected. We
do not want the low rate abused by people who are not businessmen but are really professionals or people who are not really in business. I am attempting to make sure that the low rate applies to small businessmen and not other people who want to use that rate.
I think every Canadian citizen should understand that if changes are not made once in a while there will be a lot of confusion and the benefit of the low rate for businesses will be lost. I want to protect businessmen; that is why I am moving. I want to clarify the act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PENITENTIARIES
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General: it concerns the report which emanated from his office yesterday indicating that he is embarking upon a $280 million prison construction project over five years. That program flies in the face of recommendation No. 50 of the unanimous report of the parliamentary subcommittee on prisons.
Why has the minister decided to build larger and, apparently, more prisons, in view of the report of that subcommittee? Also, can he advise why, if the government's projection shows sufficient bed space within the present system, he is embarking upon a construction project?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of launching into a new program; it is a revision of the ongoing program of which the hon. member is well aware. We have gone to larger institutions basically because the studies we have conducted indicate that the delivery of offender programs within the larger institutions is not negatively affected by the larger size. Because of the introduction of the living unit concept, with which the hon. member is very familiar, we are accommodating recommendation No. 50 of the subcommittee's report.
As well, I might indicate why we need new institutions. It is directly in order to accommodate one of the preferences of the hon. member, namely, that we should close down or change some of the large, fortress operations which we have had in the past. One of the consequences of the announced change will be the closing down of the British Columbia penitentiary.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, one of the prisons the minister announced yesterday as a new medium-security prison in the Kamloops area also happens to be in the riding of the Minister of State for the Environment. I wonder whether the Solicitor General has decided that that particular area is appropriate in terms of its nearness to courts and nearness to population, or has he decided on that particular area because of its nearness

December 13, 1978

to the constituency of the Minister of State for the Environment?


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, the Kamloops decision was made on the basis of the warm reception the community of Kamloops has given to the medium-security institution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Jacques Blais: That institution, as well, will meet a large number of the recommendations in the subcommittee's report, including common eating facilities and a more effective delivery of industrial programs. Again I would draw the attention of hon. members of this House to the fact that the hon. member for New Westminster was one of the first promoters of an enhanced industrial program within the Canadian penitentiary system. One of the reasons we are going to larger institutions is to provide more efficient industrial programs and to offer a wider variety of those programs to the inmates.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that very few of the recommendations of the subcommittee have been adopted. Not only is he not adopting them but he is abandoning the ones he said he would adopt in the first place. That has been the policy of this government.
My supplementary question is this. One of the great scandals in this country relates to the number of native people who are in our institutions. The justice and crime commission reported to the minister in October, 1977, at a cost of some $100,000, regarding what should be done about the problems associated with natives within these institutions. The minister has failed to respond to that report. In addition to that, he is phasing out-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, my question is, why is the minister phasing out one of the key positions, namely, the position of native co-ordinator, and why has he not responded to this report which contains some 85 recommendations?


Jean-Jacques Blais: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct this impression the hon. gentleman left both in his preamble, rather lengthy as it was, and in his motion under Standing Order 43, that in fact few of the recommendations of the subcommittee have been implemented. I would note that the hon. gentleman was unavoidably detained from meetings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs when we dealt with my statement about ten days ago. He was not there and therefore could not have reviewed the report I submitted at that time. Quite to the contrary, we have implemented 22 of those recommendations and 16 are very close to being implemented. In addition, most of the principles that are represented by the recommendations of the subcommittee have been recognized and are about to be implemented.
In terms of natives within the system, I fully sympathize with the hon. gentleman's position. I completely agree with him that this is one of the major difficulties within out system. This is perhaps one of the larger groups within our Canadian
Oral Questions
correctional institutions. Indeed, we are doing our utmost to correct that situation. With reference to the report the hon. gentleman has identified, I would be pleased to review the matter and discuss it with him in the near future.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board.
Statistics dating from the end of 1977 show that the percentage of French-speaking university graduates recruited by the public service has reached its lowest level since 1970, that is 24.3 per cent, and that the percentage of CEGEP and college graduates is at its lowest level. Can the minister tell the House how he conciliates these figures with the statements by the chairman of the Public Service Commission that the level of participation of Francophones has been higher in the last few years?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that there has, in fact, been a dramatic improvement. The figures cited by the hon. member were in the order of 24 per cent or 25 per cent. I think if he looks at the figures of a few years ago he will find they were in the teens, so in fact I think we have made very substantial progress in this regard.


BILINGUAL CHARACTER OF FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS- MINISTER'S POSITION
Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
According to statistics dating from the end of 1977, 52,000 positions in the public service are designated bilingual, in terms of real needs; 10,000 of these are filled by unilingual officials, the majority of whom benefit from an exemption to take language training course. In light of those figures, can the minister explain how it could have been said that the public service is now bilingual and if the whole bilingualism program of the public service was only a colossal joke at the time?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, it is not a joke at all. Basically, the 10,000 positions to which the hon. member has referred, as I understand it, are held by people who have occupied them for some time, many of them prior to implementation of the policy and
80067-60*72

December 13, 1978
Oral Questions
the bilingual designation of their posts. It is what one would term a grandfather clause situation where these people are protected in their position, but when the position becomes vacant the new person taking over will have to meet the criterion of having a capacity in both our official languages.


LAYING-OFF OF LINGUISTIC TRAINING PROGRAM STAFF-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, further to the answer the minister has just given me, I should like to put a supplementary.
As 600 staff members will be laid off in the language training school, its training capacity will be reduced to 1,600 students a year. Keeping in mind the 10,000 unilingual employees now holding bilingual jobs, that means the training school has work cut out for six years, in other words, until 1985, that is two years beyond the date set by the government. In light of this, how can the minister justify the laying-off of 600 members of the language training staff?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my earlier reply, many of these people will not be developing a capacity in the second official language. They are there on a temporary basis and because of historical precedent are being allowed to continue to occupy the particular bilingual post. The intent is not that all of these people will become bilingual. As the hon. member has mentioned, several have been given an exemption and will occupy that post until they are transferred elsewhere or retire. However, their replacements will have to meet the criterion of having a capacity in both our official languages.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. Under a joint federal-provincial cost-sharing program, the Navy Island forest products terminal was built at the port of Saint John and some agency of the ministry decided that they should invite tenders for a terminal operator at that facility. Was the province of New Brunswick consulted, and did the move to hire a terminal operator have the approval of the provincial government before the National Harbours Board invited tenders for the position?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether there were consultations specifically before the invitation for tenders, but certainly there has been close contact with the province and with others in the process since then. I can say to the hon. member, also, that no decision

has been taken so far with regard to the question, and I expect to see recommendations before any such decision is taken.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the facility was built for the forest products industry to ensure economic and convenient transportation of that product, and in view of the fact that the National Harbours Board is meeting in Saint John today, I take it that the minister has assured this House and the province of New Brunswick that no decision will be made until consultation has taken place with the province as to what is the proper decision and who should be the terminal operator according to their guidelines.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I believe that consultation has already taken place, which is what I said in my earlier answer, in relation to the whole question of operation. I am not sure that the province should be involved in the actual assessing of the final proposals because in the end that has to be our responsibility and I do not think the province would share in the responsibility of the ultimate decision.
I can assure the hon. member that the best interests of the port will be fully taken into account in the final decision.


SHIPPING
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport two questions. With regard to the closing of the Seaway on December 15, can the minister indicate to the House the number of foreign vessels still above Montreal and en route, and can he also indicate whether there is in position at Thunder Bay any additional on-board winter storage for grain?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the situation on the St. Lawrence at last reading looked favourable for the exiting of all vessels. There is a plan for loading on vessels for winter storage. The Wheat Board is attempting to continue the movement of grain into Thunder Bay to maximize winter storage aboard vessels so far as possible.


J. Michael Forrestall: A supplementary question. About a week ago, officials of the Wheat Board indicated there would be no additional grain in position at the Head of the Lakes for winter storage until today, December 13. Can the minister indicate whether grain is moving into Thunder Bay to be available for on-board winter storage now? To what extent has the delivery system been able to place grain at Thunder Bay for winter storage? How many tons are we talking about? Have they all the additional grain they should have or could have at the Lakehead?
December 13, 1978


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to obtain the exact figures in tonnes. Obviously, the Wheat Board wanted to emphasize the movement of grain into vessels while still trying to make it through the Seaway before it closed, and then turn its attention to the total question of storage of grain in vessels. I will get the figures for the hon. member.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Postmaster General. Because of the strong opposition of the major postal unions to the draft legislation to establish a Crown corporation to run the Post Office, particularly because of its failure to establish political independence and financial accountability, can the Postmaster General assure the House that there was further consultation with the union representatives before the revised bill was tabled the day before yesterday?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member is getting his information. At different reunions yesterday and the day before I met most of the union leaders who talked to me about the legislation. They seemed quite satisfied with it. We had many meetings with them. I can assure the hon. member that we already have meetings planned in order to explain to them and hear their opinions on the legislation. We have also planned meetings with postal users, mostly in Toronto and from the main cities across the country. We want to have the views of everyone before we discuss the bill, and that is what we are doing.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to know that the Postmaster General has agreed to meet with the unions and postal users to see that a special deal can be worked out. I presume he can confirm this and that specific steps are being taken so that when this legislation comes before the House he will have the views of the users, that is, the substantial postal users, the unions and, of course, his own officials.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: And Santa Claus.


Mr. Lamontagne:: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that it was done in the past and, as usual, it will be done in the future.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. The northeastern fishing grounds of Georges
Oral Questions
Bank, which I am sure the minister is aware is the fishing area for the Canadian scallop fleet and is part of the disputed area between United States and Canada in their boundary discussions, is at present showing some signs of overfishing. Tests have shown that scallop beds on the Bank are declining and the scallops are becoming smaller.
The United States scallop fleet operating out of New Bedford, Massachusetts, alone has added some 30 new ships to the fleet in the past few years, with 30 more on the drawing boards, while licences for the Canadian fleet have been frozen. What steps, if any, has the minister taken to consult with his counterpart in the United States with the hope of limiting further U.S. entry into this fishery at least until shellfish stocks are rebuilt and the boundary problem resolved?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I do not completely accept the arithmetic of the hon. member about the increased size of the United States fleet, although I know there has been some increase.
The fact is that in scallops, and at least two other stocks, we are not always in agreement with the United States authorities on conservation measures that are taken, and that is a complicating factor in any kind of joint management scheme which might come out of the negotiations. In fact, it is very clear that United States fishermen's groups have some difficulty in arriving at a consensus among themselves. In cases of lack of consensus on fishery management, it is usually the fish and the stocks that suffer. I think that is the case in this instance.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, in light of the minister's reply I will send him a copy of the release issued by the National Marine Fisheries Services Northeast Centre in the United States so that he will be aware of the size of the fleet operating out of New Bedford.
My supplementary question to the minister is to inquire whether, in view of the importance of maintaining trading relations with our friends below the border, the Minister of Fisheries or possibly the Secretary of State for External Affairs could bring the House up to date on the status of the boundary discussions between Canada and the United States, not only on the east coast but on the west coast and in our northern areas, and inform us what progress, if any, has been made on these thorny problems.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is possible, in response to an oral question, to give the hon. member as thorough an answer as I should like. 1 would be glad to tell him about it privately or in any other forum. I can say, in a general way, that progress continues to be made. I think he is aware that Secretary of State Vance of the United States and I agreed that the negotiators would report to us by the end of the year indicating the progress made and any unresolved issues. That is particularly in relation to the east coast situation.

December 13, 1978
Oral Questions
On the west coast, the situation is not as clear. I do not anticipate that we will have a fixed or definite solution by year end, but at that point we will address the west coast question to determine what steps ought to be taken from there.

[Translation}


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Prosper Boulanger (Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Now that the suspects in the Cross kidnapping affair have come back to Canada, does the Prime Minister have any comments to make about the views expressed at a news conference by Quebec Premier Levesque who was reported to have said that anyone with a fair sense of justice would take into account the eight years the Cossette-Trudels spent in exile if they are found guilty and condemned.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, if I can find the thread of the question again, I shall limit myself to saying it is a matter more of justice than politics. I believe we would all be well advised not to get involved in something that is now before the courts.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I will preface it by saying that the minister has played a very important role in the effort to secure the independence of Namibia through a United Nations supervised vote.
In view of the doubtful legality and unrepresentative character of the vote conducted under the supervision of South Africa, will the minister tell the House whether this dubious vote is to be the basis of a constitutional assembly to fix a permanent regime in Namibia, or whether South Africa may be expected to recognize that the United Nations supervised vote must proceed if international approval and a genuine expression of the wishes of the people of Namibia is to be secured?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his usual courtesy in giving me notice of this question. I did look at the proclamation under which the internal elections were called by

South Africa, and I believe the wording is worth quoting. It
says:
The Administrator General-
That is, of Namibia, as appointed by South Africa.
-shall not be obliged to give effect to any request, recommendation, proposal or advice submitted or given by the assembly under subsection (2).
That is, I think, a most important clause. It means that South Africa is not required to take into account the outcome of the Namibian election in terms of proceeding on to the next step, which would be the establishment of a constituent assembly. Once the votes have been counted and the group elected within Namibia, it is our hope-and we have some reason to believe this, from conversations 1 have had with Mr. Pik Botha, the foreign minister of South Africa-that they will then be prepared to enter into very important discussions with the United Nations and will, in fact, be prepared to co-operate with the United Nations to ensure that legitimate elections take place. I choose the word "legitimate" advisedly because, in answer to the second part of the hon. member's question, in no way do we consider the elections of last week legitimate.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear what the minister has said on this matter. As soon as the final results of the vote come in, would the minister make a statement, on motions, to the House dealing with the question of Namibia, its importance to African stability and, indeed, to world stability and the steps he thinks could be taken to ensure that the independence of Namibia be granted with full approval of the community of nations and with the concurrence of the native peoples of Namibia?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be more than pleased to do that. If the House is not in session at that time because of the Christmas recess, I will certainly do it immediately thereafter. I can say, in the interim, that the outcome of the election will be assessed in terms of what I described a few moments ago, that is, the reaction of South Africa. And I can say to the House and the hon. member now that we will immediately urge the Secretary General to send Mr. Ahtisaari, a special representative, to South Africa as soon as possible-and I mean literally within days-to enter into discussions with the South African government as to the various procedures that will be required in order to set up elections and the UN supervision to which I have referred.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the new Minister of State for Science and Technology. On June 1 of this year the minister announced the government's intention to produce guidelines for procurement policies aimed at strengthening researchintensive industries in Canada. When can we expect to see these guidelines?
December 13, 1978


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, that work is under way. I will be pleased to check into the status of the work and give a report to the House.


J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, also in the June announcement which was made in parliament the minister indicated the government's support for centres of excellence. This has received a large number of applications, including one in July from the province of New Brunswick involving our vital forest industry and the University of New Brunswick. When may we expect a decision on this matter?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right, there have been a number of submissions made-indeed, an exciting number of submissions with some very good prospects. Those are now being evaluated, as is another set of proposals with respect to innovation centres spotted across the country at university sites. I hope it will be possible early in the new year to make an announcement with respect to centres of excellence and innovation centres.


LOCATION OF CENTRES OF EXCELLENCE AND INNOVATION CENTRES
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister could tell the House where these centres of excellence and innovation centres will be located, and in addition to that, what mechanism has been established to determine the location of these proposed centres?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my previous answer, this work is going on right now within the Ministry of State for Science and Technology. Consultations are taking place under the jurisdiction of the Minister of State for Science and Technology with provinces and with universities. It would be premature for me to speculate at this moment as to where these centres will be located. I can tell the hon. member, as I told the previous speaker, that there are some very exciting prospects.


STATUS OF NORTHERN GAS PIPELINE PROJECT
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister in his capacity as minister responsible for the northern gas pipeline project.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He has disappeared.


Ralph Goodale: In his absence, I would direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the concern which has been expressed in the United States with respect to the possibility that current difficulties in Iran might jeopardize the American supply of petroleum from that coun-
Oral Questions
try, and in view of the indication that was given recently by the Foothills company that it would be physically possible to complete one of the several legs of the northern gas pipeline by the fall of 1979 if that were necessary for North American security purposes, can the minister indicate whether concrete discussions have yet been held with American representatives to determine the necessity of an emergency reaction in this regard; and, if so, can the minister indicate the status of those discussions?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any detailed discussions about emergency procedures. There may have been some at the official level. In a more general sense, there were discussions between myself and the U.S. Secretary of Energy with respect to the whole question of the Iranian situation, its importance- it is, indeed, a matter of great concern to Canada-and the kind of steps we might take jointly to deal with it. One of the answers would be to progress with the whole refinery situation in eastern Canada. That matter is now under study in our two countries.
Similarly, there is an opportunity for emergency storage at certain eastern locations. It may be that natural gas can be used in a similar way. But I think much more work has to be done as far as Canada and the United States are concerned. It is clear that natural gas can be of great interest and benefit to Canada if we maximize the Canadian market and thus reduce our dependence on foreign oil.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Yuri Shymko (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration and concerns the deportation by federal authorities of a certain Sewa Singh Chinna, an irreplaceable employee of the (Craven Knitting Limited, an important business in Stratford, Ontario. Since this will spell the closing of this business and since the minister heard representations on the matter about a month ago and promised to advise the House of a decision, I would like to know if a decision has been taken to authorize Mr. Chinna to stay in Canada and consequently save this business and avoid causing pain to families of more unemployed?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: No, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I have told Mr. Ken Kraven, the owner and operator of this particular knitting mill, that we will not permit this individual to come into Canada as a landed immigrant. He falls far short of the requirements for a landed immigrant.

December 13, 1978
Oral Questions
The other problems were also in place, including the resignation of one of the operators at a particular plant. My officials in that area are working with Mr. Kraven and are providing, or are prepared to provide, the people to do the training and also to work in close co-operation with the company in the United States that supplies machinery, to see if we can find someone who can operate this particular machine. However, the individual named by the hon. member will not be permitted into Canada as a landed immigrant.


Yuri Roman Shymko: Mr. Speaker, I think it points to the contradictions which exist in some of the policies of that particular ministry. Instead of deporting the famed war criminals from Poland, Stanislaw Radkiewicz-


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


Yuri Roman Shymko: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Since the Kraven Knitting company has stated that it will close permanently on December 22, can the minister justify putting 50 employees of that company out of work, representing over $500,000 in salaries and more than $2 million in economic loss to that region? On the one hand, a program was recently launched under which potential immigrants-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's East.


AGRICULTURE
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Although the minister sounds, and at times looks, like an old gobbler, I know his heart is in the right place. I know he wants to ensure that Canadians will be able to buy their turkeys this year at a reasonable price.
In light of the charge made by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that the turkey marketing board seriously underestimated the supply situation, and hence drove the price up, may I ask the hon. gentleman what steps he has taken to investigate that charge and what assurance he can give the House that there will be an adequate supply of turkeys on hand to ensure that Canadians can afford to buy them at a reasonable price this Christmas?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: I am sure the hon. member can read and write-pretty sure-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: In the local papers recently there have been tremendous advertisements for birds-turkeys, hen birds, toms, etc.-at different prices ranging from as low as 89 cents a pound, reasonably priced products. If he has read what the

suppliers of these birds have been saying, he will know there will be an adequate supply for Christmas. Needless to say, we have carried out some inquiries in the department and our investigations have shown that the humble bird which is used for festive occasions such as Thanksgiving, Christmas, Easter, weddings and festivities like these is still a good buy, considering it is lower in price than a hot dog.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, speaking of humble birds, was the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: -enunciating government policy when he stated that the turkey marketing board has seriously underestimated supply and when he claimed that this was due largely to the fact that the turkey marketing board had on it no consumer representation? If that is the case, can the minister assure the House that this situation will be remedied, or else will he clip the wings of his hon. friend, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is following his line of questioning more for devilment than for anything else. All he has to do is to look at that advertisement and see that these are prime, best-you-can-buy, turkeys. One of the directors of these stores is even a former chairman of the Food Prices Review Board, and the top grade is only $1.09 a pound. Other products which have no marketing boards connected with them have gone up much more in price than these highly nutritious birds which are almost 12'/2 per cent or 13 per cent protein, higher than nearly any other meat you can buy. They are a very good buy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: My question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, Mr. Speaker. The United Nations conference on refugee matters ended in Geneva yesterday. At that conference, during a discussion on Southeast Asian refugees, the western countries gave a commitment to provide an additional $10 million for those refugees as well as an undertaking that an additional number of refugees would be accepted.
I would like to ask the minister whether Canada made any commitment with respect to the $10 million and, further, whether Canada made a commitment to accept refugees in addition to the 600 from the Hai Hong, the 50 boat people per month or the 20 overland refugees per month.
December 13, 1978


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, Canada was a very active participant in the conference to which the hon. member referred. We did not go there with any intention to make any commitment, but we are endeavouring to determine how the matter might be resolved on a long term basis over a three or four-year period, rather than by some ad hoc method.
I have not yet received a report from our representative at the meeting other than a preliminary indication that the discussions were very productive. It seems there may be very adequate response to this problem. Officials of the government of Vietnam were also there and representations were made to them which might help facilitate family reunification not only in Canada but in other countries.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: 1 would like to direct my supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, since it is likely to come under his jurisdiction. One of the ongoing problems with respect to Southeast Asian refugees or, for that matter, any refugee movement is the fact that there are so few receiving countries, Canada being one of them. At the conference in Geneva a strong petition was put forward that more countries declare themselves willing to be refugee-receiving countries. Could the minister tell us what the response was? Were commitments made by countries now not receiving refugees, to do so? I ask this in relation specifically to Southeast Asian refugees.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer in specific terms for the conference itself. I have no doubt, although I have not seen a report to confirm this, that representations calling for more receiving countries were made. As for the reaction to the suggestion, there is as yet no formal report from the conference. Recently, during conversations at NATO with a number of countries, some of my colleagues and I urged that there be a widening of the number of receiving countries, and this suggestion was received quite well. In other words, I think there is a general awareness of the necessity for more countries to be forthcoming in this regard.
Without going into all the details, the difficulty lies in getting some kind of international agreement which would provide an ongoing basis upon which crises of this kind could be dealt with in an orderly fashion. As far as Canada is concerned, I think the most recent instance demonstrates the compassion we feel. We shall continue to do what we can and, as well, to urge other countries to do the same.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice: it concerns the regulations which form part of the gun control law which will take effect on January 1. It seems that under those regulations
Oral Questions
people having guns repaired, as well as those buying new guns, will be forced to obtain a registration certificate. The regulations also provide that issuing officers will only be stationed in communities with populations of over 15,000. This would create a tremendous hardship in many parts of Canada. I would like the minister to check into these matters to make sure that this situation is rectified before the law comes into effect on January 1.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, I take the representations the hon. member has made very seriously. I am aware of the difficulty that exists with respect to the repair of guns. It is not a question of having the guns registered; we are dealing with hunting guns which may be under repair and the requirement to obtain an arms acquisition certificate to re-acquire the gun once it has been repaired. This is a question which is currently receiving my close attention.
As for placing officers only in communities of 15,000 population or more, that is not the information that I have. However, I will certainly check into this matter and report back to the hon. gentleman.


STATUS QUO OF CANADA CUP HOCKEY COMPETITION
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. Would the minister clarify to the House her position with respect to CAHA representation on the I1HF? Alan Eagleson and Hockey Canada both appear to feel that the Canada Cup is dead. What does the minister intend to do to ensure that this popular sporting event does take place?


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, the entire matter hinges on a rather complicated pattern, and perhaps I should answer on the order paper but I will try to explain here. In June of this year the CAHA and Hockey Canada agreed that Hockey Canada would take over certain of the representations of international teams. There was one section of the agreement wherein if there was a junior team involved it was agreed that there would be an internal committee of Hockey Canada which would be controlled by the CAHA and which would represent Canada in junior team involvements. This was on June 26. On June 27, the next day, the agreement was signed by the CAHA and by Hockey Canada, and I was never given any indication by anyone in that operation that this was in any way a tentative agreement.
Four months later, on October 20 of this year, I was told by the CAHA that it disagreed with the agreement and with certain specific sections in it. Therefore, Mr. Eagleson has been waiting for us to honour the agreement which was made with the International Ice Hockey Federation regarding the 1979 and 1981 world championships, the 1979 and 1982

December 13, 1978
Reference to Committee
Canada Cup, the 1980 Olympic participation, and the 1981 world-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Regretfully, with the best of intentions, the answer although informative in nature is just a bit long for the question period. Perhaps the hon. member might have one short supplementary.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister if, on behalf of Canada, she has considered allowing either Alan Eagleson, representing professional players in Canada, or that organization to exercise representation on the international hockey association so that we can participate in the Canada Cup and so that there will be some hope that it will continue in the future. It obviously will not if we play around with amateur hockey associations.


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, I have asked Hockey Canada to convene a meeting tomorrow or the next day at which Hockey Canada will undertake to find a means to resolve this problem. I expect the agreement signed last summer to be adopted, and if the CAHA finds it impossible to live with this, I expect it will find it impossible to live with Hockey Canada.


NATIONAL RESOURCES AND PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise as a point of order the question of House business relating to the last session of parliament, if I can get the attention of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen). The question arises out of the work done in the last session of parliament with respect to the referral of the Hare report on the disposal of nuclear waste to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works. As the Deputy Prime Minister knows, there were a number of excellent hearings held with respect to that important question.
Since the termination of the last session and the work of that committee not being completed, some major proposals have come forward, one as late as today released by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited on the Canadian disposal program for the management of radioactive fuel wastes. In view of some of the conclusions in that report and some of the timetabling committing the government agency to the disposal of nuclear waste, I wonder if the Deputy Prime Minister can give us some assurance that a reference of the Hare report plus other more recent documents can be made to the standing committee again in order that it can complete its work and make a full and final report to this House in this session of parliament.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, in cases of this kind usually the initiative for the referral of a question like the one

my hon. friend mentions is up to the minister responsible. I normally agree, unless there are strong reasons from the point of view of the operation of the committee system why a particular matter should not go ahead. So I believe that in a matter of this kind the question should be addressed to the appropriate minister.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have one further point with respect to this point of order. In view of the request in the last session by the committee to have that reference again so that it can complete its work, I wonder if the Deputy Prime Minister would consult with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) and any other appropriate officials so that that work may be completed. I am sure both ministers would want to have a full and final report from this parliamentary committee so that reports such as this may be examined fully. Otherwise, we may find government bodies making decisions for which there has been no parliamentary consideration or approval. Can we get some agreement that the minister might consult and make a reference very quickly in order that the committee can recommence its efforts?


Alastair William Gillespie: We will consult.


PRIVILEGE
Jacques Lavoie: Mr. Speaker, this is the third time since I have been in the House of Commons that I rise on a question of privilege, and once again it has to do with the oral question period. Fairly often we see some colleagues on this side of the House get up regularly to ask questions of public interest, but we were recognized perhaps two or three times, Mr. Speaker, and I do not hold that against you. What happens in the meantime is that when they arrive in Quebec, for example, hon. members of the opposition say: You have 60 or 61 members and they never get up to speak in the House. We are willing to get up but if we are not recognized, we cannot say anything, Mr. Speaker. So I would suggest, with all due respect, that the leader of the government meet you, either alone or perhaps with a few hon. members, to try to come to an agreement on that matter because it seems that as hon. members, whether Liberal, Conservative, Social Credit or NDP members, we all have the same rights in the House. Then, it is normal to be able to ask questions. I am not saying that it is always the same hon. member who should ask questions. I have other colleagues, for example the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) who gets up nearly every day. There is also the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier) and how many others who get up without being recognized, Mr. Speaker. I feel the problem should be settled once and for all in the Standing Committee on Privileges and
December 13, 1978

Elections, for example, so that we can also be recognized in the House. I think it is simple logic.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders-Mr. Comtois
[Editor's Note: For text of the above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River) moved: that the third report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, presented to the House on Monday, December 11, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that almost unanimous expression and wish on the part of hon. members opposite. I will not speak for too long on this motion. I am glad that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has rushed here from his arrival from Europe to listen to this debate.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I wouldn't miss you, Jed.


Gerald William Baldwin: I know the Prime Minister is interested because I have a few documents to indicate that he and the government are alarmed at the extent to which there is abuse of regulatory power. At federal-provincial conferences the Prime Minister has shown that he is concerned about trying to restrict this abuse.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I just want to see your usual imagination at work, Jed.


Gerald William Baldwin: My imagination certainly has led me to thank the Prime Minister for coming here. My imagination does not prevent me from saying that I hope he will support the motion, when it comes to a vote. In the meantime I will undertake to
Regulations
stay and listen to his speech, although I do so with some reluctance.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: So do I.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, this motion indicates that there is unanimous support in the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments and the report deals particularly with the flagrant abuse of regulatory power by officials of the Department of Transport. On several occasions this committee has brought before the House reports in connection with our responsibility for examining the extent to which the power which this House and parliament gives to government, government officials and government agencies to act by order in council and regulation has been abused.
The extent of this can be shown by the fact that since our committee came into existence we have examined over 3,000 orders in council. Those are only orders in council which are not hidden, because a large number are not published. There are also directives and decrees which are not made public. It is fair to say that in the last three or four years there have been probably many thousand more than the 3,000 directives which I have mentioned affecting the people of this country, their lives, their property and their social problems, directives which have been prepared by bureaucrats, signed by ministers and have become the law of the land. Of those 3,000, we have said in respect of 1,200 cases that they should be challenged, objected to or queried. So when I say to the House that this is a considerable problem, Your Honour will be quite aware that I am not exaggerating.
The particular issue in question arose from an attempt by officials of the Department of Transport to deal with land adjacent to a number of airports in Canada. Those airports have been listed in the appropriate orders in council and cover St. Hubert, Calgary, Resolute Bay, Toronto international airport, Windsor, Sault Ste. Marie, Sarnia, Ottawa, North Bay, Hamilton, Kelowna, Sept- lies and Charlo airports. It is an order in council by which the minister, through his regulations, is given the power to send his agents or contractors to an adjacent property to cut down articles of natural growth, trees or what have you, and have them hauled away or disposed of as he sees fit.
In the first instance, this is far outside the terms of the enabling section in the statute. The pertinent section of the statute is section 6(1)(/') of the Aeronautics Act, which provides that the governor in council may pass regulations dealing with such things as regulations restricting, regulating or prohibiting the doing of anything or the suffering of anything to be done on any such lands-that is, lands adjacent to an airport. That is a very reasonable power to be given, but it is far less than the tremendous power given here by some official in the form of an order in council put before the governor in council to sign. I doubt very much that the cabinet examines too closely some of the orders in council they do sign, having in mind what I have read about them. The officials are empow-

December 13, 1978
Regulations
ered to go on the land and remove these articles and commodities of natural growth.
This particular order in council is covered in clause 7 of the regulations gazetted in 1978. It reads:
Where an owner or occupier referred to in section 6 permits an object of natural growth to exceed in elevation any of the surfaces set out.. . the minister may make a direction that any person may enter upon the land on which the object is growing and remove the excessive growth thereof.
If this parliament, which all too frequently is careless about the power it gives to the governor in council or to ministers to exercise authority by order in council, wishes that this be done, then let the government come to parliament and seek that power. Let us not leave it to some unknown, unnamed, faceless bureaucrat to make this particular regulation.
I suggest that in substance this authority may not be as much as some hon. members might feel it should be, but to me and to anyone who prizes parliamentary government in this country it seems we should stop and ask ourselves how far we are prepared to go to give authority to governments, to government departments and to government agencies to act by order in council without in any way examining the extent to which use is made of that power.
On several occasions our committee has made representations to the House, we have brought in reports to the House, but they have been ignored and neglected, and it is a matter of considerable importance that the Prime Minister, at the federal-provincial conference of February of this year, proposed that some steps should be taken to examine the growth of the regulatory power to see what should be done to curtail it.
In a letter of July of this year the Prime Minister wrote to the president of the Economic Council of Canada, Dr. Ostry, for whom I have considerable admiration, but in this case the letter was late, probably too little and too late. Dr. Ostry and her advisers only had between July and November of this year to make an interim report. The interim report went some distance along the road, but asking bureaucrats, who are probably members of the task force, or other bureaucrats in government to look at the problem of too much regulatory power is like asking rats to make the rat trap in which they will be forced to put themselves some time in the future. I am speaking figuratively, of course.
The Prime Minister is thoroughly familiar with rats, of course, and I do not feel that what I am saying is unknown to him in that respect. But 1 point out, Mr. Speaker, that if any body or any forum is going to exercise the care and scrutiny which there should be in respect of a matter of this kind, it is this House and this parliament. We have been careless and slovenly in the extent to which we have given away these powers and in our failure to ride herd on what happens to them after we have given them away. The Prime Minister recognized that, I think. He would make a great man in opposition. If he were in opposition, he would make a great rebel. When he is in power, of course, he believes in exercising all the authority on which he can lay his hands. When the devil is ill, the devil an angel would be; when the devil is well, the devil an angel is he. That is the way I think of the Prime Minister.

This is the situation we face. We have attempted to deal with it. Our committee, at the instance of my distinguished and learned colleague, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), passed a motion-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: 1 am glad to hear that my opinion of my colleague is shared by hon. members opposite.


Mr. Railton:: It has changed overnight.


Gerald William Baldwin: I do not known what the hon. member did last night, but whatever he did, he was probably driven to it by the behaviour of hon. members opposite.
To come back to the subject, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton proposed a motion, which was unanimously accepted in committee by members on both sides of the House and from both houses. We are one of the committees which acted with unanimity and our reports are unanimous, so that is why we are getting some credibility for them. The hon. member's motion was to the effect that when bills are brought before the House which contain a clause of a regulatory nature, that enabling clause should be referred to the Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments for study. Because our committee acts on a post mortem basis.
I think it is terribly important, when the House is being asked to give to the governor in council, to a minister or to an agency these important powers, that we should be entitled to ask why they want them, what they will do with those powers, what it will cost, who they will affect, and what will be their economic impact.
That is the text of the letter of the Prime Minister which was sent to the president of the Economic Council of Canada. Obviously he must feel the same way, and I hope he exercises what authority he still has among members of his own party in an attempt to pursuade them to adopt this particular motion.
I could continue for some length of time, but I do not want to delay the right hon. Prime Minister and other members of my party who wish to participate in the debate on this motion. I hope hon. members on both sides of the House will see the importance of this motion, in that it represents some attempt by the House to once more exercise control, to challenge and scrutinize the vast powers which we are persuaded to give government agencies.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to detain the House when we are eager for a very important matter of economic business. I am delighted the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) recognized the importance of the statutory instruments procedure once again in his remarks today. He did not translate that recognition into a tribute to the government for seeing to it that these procedures are in place in order to effect a thorough examination of our regulations.


Gerald William Baldwin: John Turner brought that in.
December 13, 1978


Otto Emil Lang: This is a fact, and it is a tribute to the entire procedure. This regulation was made in a department which is within my area of responsibility. Perhaps I will ask the committee to consider hearing directly from the minister on another occasion, if the committee is moving to recommend, or comment against, a regulation. I say that kindly and in passing, without any great feeling of having missed an opportunity to appear before the committee.
The committee did not indicate that the regulation was ultra vires. It did not attempt to answer that legal question, and it did not indicate that it was necessarily a wrong thing to do. But the committee directed itself to the fact that it would be better, because of the extraordinary nature of the power, if it were done more directly by legislation rather than by regulation.
I have examined this particular question. In any case, it is not a power which is often needed or used. Perhaps a debate in parliament would have been desirable in relation to it. Therefore, I have no quarrel with the unanimous recommendation which the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments put before the House. I support the report and therefore I will vote for it if a vote is necessary in the circumstances.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak very briefly to the motion of concurrence in the report. I do so in order officially to apprise the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments of an order in council which was the subject of a question of privilege brought before the House last Friday. I am referring to order in council No. PC 1978-3243 of October 26, 1978 which was proclaimed in the Canada Gazette on November 8.
The reason it was the subject of a question of privilege before the House was that the order in council proclaimed on November 8 enacts or proclaims into law a clause of a bill which is still before the House, namely, clause 2 of Bill C-14. Mr. Speaker intervened during the course of the question of privilege and suggested that in the normal course of the work of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments this matter would come before it. Also Mr. Speaker suggested that the question of privilege could be disposed of by referring it to the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments without prejudice to any question of privilege which may arise from it.
My reasons for participating in this motion are twofold. First, I should like to apprise the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments of the importance of dealing with this matter as soon as possible because Bill C-14 has not been disposed of. It has not had third reading; it is still before committee. Also, I do so because of the tremendous backlog of work facing the committee. According to the committee report, it has considered 3,047 regulations. It has objected to, queried and requested explanation, including matters raised by counsel prior to submission of an instrument to the committee with explanation attached, of 1,125 statutory instruments or regulations.
Regulations
In the normal course of events, the committee would not deal with this particular regulation or statutory instrument, passed by cabinet in October and proclaimed in the Canada Gazette in November, for some time. It would be considerably after the House gave third reading to Bill C-14 and it passed the other place. That represents the quandary embodied in my intervention.
Before Bill C-14 is passed by parliament, the committee should rule as to whether government had the authority to enact that order in council which embodies the provisions of clause 2 of Bill C-14. If the government did not have that statutory authority, it is in contempt of the House and it would be the legitimate subject of a question of privilege. On the other hand, if the government had the statutory authority to enact the provisions of clause 2 of Bill C-14, then why did it bother to ask parliament to pass clause 2 or why did the government bother to include clause 2 in Bill C-14?
In conclusion, I congratulate the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and his co-chairman, Senator Forsey, on the excellent work which the committee has been doing as the watchdog of parliament's rights respecting legislation and the power or practice of the government to go beyond legislation all too often by enacting regulations flowing from legislation. I should like to apprise him, his co-chairman and the members of the committee of the urgency of giving consideration to order in council No. PC 1978-3243 passed on October 26. I say this because of its conflict with Bill C-14, and because it may very well put the government in contempt of parliament, which would be a legitimate subject of a question of privilege in the House.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I realize the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) wants to begin. I do not want to hold him up because his journey has been a long and difficult one. I thank the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) for bringing this motion before the House. If the motion is adopted by the House, it would permit the House to depart from the usual practice of merely referring bills to standing committees, and provide a concurrent power to refer the regulatory aspect of the bill to the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments to deal with the matter.
I was pleased with the acceptance of the motion by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). He suggested that it might be appropriate from time to time for ministers to appear before the committee respecting matters which fall under their jurisdiction when regulations made under statute are before the committee. I think that is quite appropriate and would be welcomed. We would welcome advice from time to time from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde) in his capacity as Attorney General. I have often wondered whether, because the Minister of Justice has certain administrative responsibilities as far as the Government of Canada is concerned and to his colleagues in cabinet, he might stray into a conflict of interest situation or find himself at odds periodically because of his responsibilities as the Attorney General of Canada. Certainly if there was a separation of that department that would

December 13, 1978
Regulations
facilitate this kind of work, not only in respect of this committee but in respect of a host of other operations of committees of the House of Commons.
In closing, I want to commend to the Prime Minister the work of the joint chairmen of the committee, Senator Eugene Forsey and the hon. member for Peace River, who has already spoken. I want to speak particularly about the work of Senator Forsey and other senators of the committee who gave excellent service. I would hope that as time goes on the Prime Minister and the government House leader might want to temper their comments in respect of the Senate. The Senate is a very useful organization in terms of the calibre of work I have seen as a member of the committee. I know the Senate has followed the tradition which has existed in their finance committee in dealing with expenditures of the government. They have done an excellent job and have followed up that tradition in this particular committee. I hope the House will see fit to concur in this report.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I too want briefly to enter the debate on this particular motion and to join with those who have already spoken in support of the proposition we have before us; that is to say, putting into place a procedure which I think will very much improve the effectiveness of the operations of the Joint Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. That committee is doing yeoman service not only on behalf of members of this House but on behalf of the people of Canada, looking as it does at the incredible number of regulations that we see in government today and that affect very seriously the lives of people across the country.
I could not help but note that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) in his interjection referred to the fact that this government has introduced a provision in law which allows for the establishment of this committee and allows the committee to look at regulations from time to time. As I recall, this was brought forward on a motion by Mr. John Turner, who is known to the Prime Minister, I think, when he was minister of justice.
I want also to point out the fact that while this move on the part of the government was extremely worth-while, and we in fact want to give credit where credit is due, we do go through a process of evolution in the considerations of this committee, learning from our experience in dealing with various regulations, statutory instruments and a variety of orders in council.
My hon. friend from St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) has pointed out an example of the kind of consideration we might now give in respect of legislation before the House. This is a matter of very considerable importance when there appears on the face of it to be conflict between a regulation which in fact has been passed or proclaimed by order in council and a section of a bill being considered by a standing committee of this House.
I simply want to say that in my estimation we should try to broaden the operations of this committee in the interests of the people we represent, because from time to time there are occasions when it is drawn to our attention as members of parliament that there are regulations in place, or potentialities in terms of legislation, which would have serious consequences in the form of regulatory control on the lives of the people of this country. Sometimes I have felt we have been somewhat constrained within the committee in dealing with these particular matters until they came up in a post mortem sense, as referred to by the hon. member for Peace River.
I want to give my full support and endorsation to that which has been said by those who have spoken already. This is another step in the attempt to come to terms with the evergrowing government by regulation with which we are faced these days. I hope the report will receive unanimous concurrence at this time.


[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: Nos. 34, 168, 194, 222, 224, 227, 269, 360, 361,362, and 369.


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 Atlantic Development Council?
2.	How much was committed on each contract and to whom?


Mr. Donald Wood (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The reply for the Atlantic Development Council is as follows: 1. (a) Thirteen contracts were let in 1976-77 for the study and review of various subjects of concern in revising the council's economic development strategy for the Atlantic region. Please refer to following
table.		
(b) Nil.		
2.		Amount
Name	Nature of contract	committedDr. O. M. Solandt	General advice on approach, planning, elements and technical context for strategy revision project	$10 200Atlantic Provinces Economic Council	Agriculture	6 500
(Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton).l
December 13, 1978

		Amount
Name	Nature of contract	committedMr. E. S. Fellows	Forestry	$ 4 500Geological Services Ltd.	Mining	4 500Mr. C. Karasek	Construction	3 500Development Planning Associates Ltd.	Manufacturing	10 000Development Planning Associates Ltd.	Tourism	2 000Mr. John Brander	Transportation	2 500Atlantic Provinces Economic Council	Debt and equity Financing	5 000Dr. Angus Bruneau	Prospects in high technology	5 000Dr. A. W. H. Needier	Fisheries	3 480Mr. C. Karasek	Maine corridor road	5 000Atlantic Provinces	Service industries	2 500
Economic Council


Mr. Roche: 1.	Do the proceedings of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence for May 31, 1977 at p. 20A-2 contain the following statement from CIDA with respect to tied aid "Recently, an interdepartmental agreement was reached for a one-year trial period of limited untying to developing countries? It will take some months to establish appropriate administrative procedures so that this can be implemented without seriously affecting particular Canadian industries or communities."
2.	Have the appropriate administrative procedures for proceeding with a one-year trial period of limited untying been established and (a) if so, on what date will the trial period begin or on what date did it begin (b) if not (i) what is causing the delay (ii) on what date will they be established?
3.	What is meant by (a) "appropriate administrative procedures" (b) "limited untying" to developing countries?
4.	Which are the particular Canadian (a) industries (b) communities that would be seriously affected by limited untying of aid to developing countries?


Mr. Louis Duclos (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. See Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, citation 171 (ff).
2.	Administrative procedures were drawn up in 1977 but submission to the minister for approval was postponed, largely in view of constraints imposed by the comprehensive review of CIDA's organizational structure being undertaken at that time. With the re-organization now underway, the question of untying to developing countries is being re-examined with a view to submission of proposals for ministerial approval.
3.	(a) "Appropriate administrative procedures" mean that clear guidelines must be established for the issuance of tender calls, their evaluation and approval, for payments, tax exemptions, settlement of disputes, etc.
These procedures are necessary to ensure:
-optimal benefit to the recipient country;
-meaningful bidding opportunities for third country suppliers;
Order Paper Questions
-an acceptable level of CIDA administrative burden while maintaining adequate control over the utilization of aid funds;
-avoidance of serious injury to particular Canadian industries which might result from loss of aid contracts.
(b) The international debate on untying revolves around the concept of phasing in more liberal measures on a gradual basis, moving from "partial" untying to developing countries as recognized by DAC to full or "reciprocal" untying between donors. The expression "limited" untying refers to untying only to those countries eligible to receive Canadian bilateral assistance.
4.	When this matter was reviewed in 1977, the industries and activities which might be significantly affected by untying to developing countries were considered to be railway rolling stock, potash and parallel financed EDC-CIDA lines of credit.


Mr. Howie: Did the government agree to assist the Maritime Energy Corporation with its operating expenses and, if so, in what amount?


Alastair William Gillespie: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: Negotiations are not yet completed between the federal government and the provinces. Federal participation discussed has been related to capital and organization costs rather than to operating expenses.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: What products does Eldorado Nuclear Limited plan to produce in the proposed uranium refinery in the Province of Saskatchewan?


Alastair William Gillespie: Eldorado Nuclear Limited reports as follows: The proposed Saskatchewan uranium refinery would be capable of producing uranium hexafluoride (UF6) as well as intermediate and final uranium products both for Canadian and export markets. The actual product mix for the proposed plant will be subject to further market analysis and feasibility studies.


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Is the government contemplating, or has it under discussion, any changes in its policy with regard to the export of uranium?


Alastair William Gillespie: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: The statement on Canada's uranium policy made by the Hon. Donald S. Macdonald on September 5, 1974 has been working well and continues to apply so far as the export of uranium is concerned.

December 13, 1978
Order Paper Questions URANIUM ENRICHMENT PLANTS


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Is the government comtemplating, or has it under discussion, any changes in its policy with regard to the construction of uranium enrichment plants in Canada?


Alastair William Gillespie: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: No.


Mr. Epp: From June 1, 1974 to date, what lawyers in the Constituency of Provencher were given work by the Department of Finance and what amount was each paid per year?
Mr. Claud e-Andre Lachance (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice): In so far as the legal agents of the Minister of Justice are concerned: None.


Mr. Lawrence: 1.	What is the current cost of one pound of (a) natural uranium fuel (b) milled uranium?
2.	How much value is added to one pound of uranium during (a) refining (b) fuel fabrication?


Alastair William Gillespie: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows:
1.	(a) and (b) Uranium is currently bought and sold as a mill concentrate containing in excess of 70 per cent uranium (85 per cent U3Og). Costs of producing this product vary considerably from producer to producer depending on such things as the nature of the deposit, the method of exploitation, the geographic location and the tax and royalty structure of the host province. Current prices of uranium are in the order of $ 130/kg Uranium ($50/lb U3Og) in Canadian dollars.
2.	(a) and (b) Since Canadian uranium export policy requires that exports be in the most refined form possible, uranium which is destined for export is normally refined to uranium hexafluoride (UFQ. This step adds about $5.50 to $6.00/kg U to the value of the exported product. Uranium destined for the domestic market is first refined to purified ceramic-grade uranium dioxide (U02), increasing the value by about $6.00/kg U; fabrication of the U02 into CANDU fuel adds a further increment of some $40/kg U.


Mr. Lawrence: How many persons are employed in Canada for the purpose of (a) mining uranium (b) milling uranium (c) refining uranium (d) fabricating uranium fuel?


Alastair William Gillespie: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: (a) and (b) 5,000 (estimated); (c) 500 (estimated); (d) 600 (estimated).


Mr. Lawrence: Will AECL, any of its contractors or any other Canadian agency, producer, private firm, corporation, partnership or consortium be involved in the transfer of technology to help (a) South Korea (b) Argentina (c) Romania or any agency, utility or operator in any of the countries, with the mining, milling, refining or fabrication of natural uranium fuel?


Alastair William Gillespie: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited reports as follows: (a) No. (b) and (c) Argentina and Romania have expressed the wish to acquire fuel fabrication technology to manufacture their own CANDU fuel. Both will have to negotiate such transfer with the Canadian fabricators with whom such technology resides.


Mr. Lawrence: How many pounds of uranium fuel is or will be consumed per year in (a) Pickering NGS A (b) Bruce NGS A (c) Douglas Point (d) Point Lepreau?


Alastair William Gillespie: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited reports as follows:
			Future estimated at 80 per
		1977 Actual	cent capacity factor Mg of
		Mg of U	U per year
(a)	Pickering A	295	268(b)	Bruce A	222	370(c)	Douglas Point	12.8	27(d)	Point Lepreau	0	98


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 322 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 322 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
December 13, 1978


Mr. Jones: 1.	Does the Candian Armed Forces place any advertising in local newspapers or special events programmes, and if so, what are they?
2.	What amount of money is spent on each of these "ads"?
3.	Are these ads, from development to lay-out, completed by Armed Forces personnel or do outside private agencies do that work? Are there not sufficient numbers of personnel within the Armed Forces to complete whatever work of this type is necessary?
4.	What is the total amount of monies spent on advertising of this sort? What is the purpose of advertising of this sort?
Return tabled.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, 1 would ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Pierre Elliott 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.
He said: Mr. Speaker, before beginning my remarks on this important subject I just want to say a few preliminary words to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) thanking him for his suggestion that the previous subject be dealt with somewhat expeditiously in order that we get on with this debate. I appreciate his consideration.
I must in turn say that I had not been told that there would be this other matter brought up by my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), and I had made plans to leave the House at 4.10. This will not permit me
Economic Development
to listen to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) or the leader of the NDP, and I apologize to them.
Since the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton referred to the past 12 hours, I would tell him it is not those hours that have been long, Mr. Speaker, it is the next nine hours that I fear. I may have to step out of the House before hearing the opposition's point of view, but my colleague the President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers (Mr. Andras) will stay throughout the debate and keep me very well informed.
We are talking about Canada's economic problems, and I know they have led to many questions about our future economic prospects. Even though we have created jobs at a record pace, unemployment is still too high; and even though we have managed to bring our domestic costs and prices under control, the lower value of the dollar and the rapid rise in prices for some food products continue to exert inflationary pressures.
Canadians are frustrated by the perception that a country as rich in human and natural resources as ours still is not realizing its economic potential. There is a strong sense that we must work together to strengthen the structure of industry in Canada, to develop our manufacturing, resource and service sectors in a manner that increases our international competitiveness and that allows the economic potential of each region to be realized.
Canadians have looked to the government for leadership and direction, and we have responded through a number of specific measures. It is important to recognize the principles that have guided our actions. We do not believe that governments alone can create a strong and healthy economy. Economic development and growth must be based on a competitive and dynamic private sector. This can be achieved only by the government and private sector acting together in ways that are mutually supportive.
The private sector must lead this process, but government support is necessary in three broad areas: first, to create a climate for growth to ensure that the general policies and programs of government support initiative, risk taking and innovation; second, to assist economic development directly where necessary and desired, to help the entrepreneur to take advantage of new opportunities to promote healthy, viable and dynamic regional economies to ease the burdens of adjustment for those individuals and regions where adjustment is required; and third, to assist in the provision of basic infrastructures that will enable the private sector to develop new initiatives and open up new markets.

The steps we took follow the principles 1 just mentioned and reinforce them. First of all, we are doing everything we can to ensure the recovery and the prosperity of the world economy. Trade being a vital necessity for Canada, we are taking an active part in international meetings to foster that world

December 13, 1978
Economic Development
recovery and prevent the escalation of protectionism which could jeopardize our economic well-being. I participated in four summit conferences, and particularly in Bonn, as leaders of major industrialised countries, we managed to take firm and decisive steps that will help bring back stability, growth and confidence.
We are actively pursuing the multilateral trade negotiations. We have specific interests to protect and promote as Canadians and we will continue firmly to assert them. At the same time, it is in our interest to fight protectionist policies which will hurt all countries, but particularly Canada.
Second, we have taken and will continue to take steps to create in Canada a healthy economic climate, a climate of confidence favourable to business growth and prosperity. Our anti-inflation program helped our industry regain its competitiveness in Canada and on world markets. We are also clearly determined to ensure that wage settlements in the public sector do not threaten to reduce that competitiveness by moving faster than in the private sector. We are also determined to reduce the part the government takes in economic activity and government interference in private sector decisions. We will continue to examine our social programs to ensure they provide sufficient assistance to those in need without reducing the incentive to work and the spirit of entrepreneurship. And if it is possible to improve on those programs, we will not hesitate to take the necessary steps, as we did recently in the case of family allowance payments and unemployment insurance benefits.
Finally, we took a certain number of specific steps to help Canadian industry:
-We have offered help and incentives to small businesses. We have reduced considerably their paperwork and decided to lower the excise tax and the capital gains tax.
-Changes to corporate income tax have helped industry to face the distortion in real benefits caused by inflation.
-We have increased help to Canadian exports through the Export Development Corporation. And, in co-operation with the private sector, we are setting up a last-risk insurance formula guaranteed by the government.
-We have started rationalizing our programs of direct help to manufacturing and processing industries by establishing the business assistance program. Regional committees were created in all provinces and are directed by representatives of the private sector. Through that program, we have improved adaptation and innovation spirit in Canadian industry. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) also announced recently that the funds available will be doubled next year and that the maximum guaranteed loans to the private sector will rise from $350 million up to $1 billion.
-We have sharply increased our help to research and development in Canada. We hope that expenses for research and development will amount to 1.5 per cent of our gross

national product within five years, particularly in the private sector, and we have offered major tax incentives to facilitate the pursuit of that objective. Even though it may vary from one industry to another and from one region to another, enterprises located in the maritimes can now get the equivalent of $1 in new research and development for every 150 to 200 they spend.
Research and development are necessary if we want to set up highly technical industries which will be able to compete on the international level in the 80's. However, research and development alone are not always enough. This is why the government took some action recently to provide direct assistance on the hand to the aerospatial industry to help develop the Challenger which already has had an amazing success and, on the other hand, to the communications industry to promote in Canada the commercial development of communications satellite techniques. This is also why we implemented recently a $400 million program to promote the commercial development of new industries in the field of renewable energy resources. This is also why we shall continue to look for opportunities to break through and means to be successful in various major sectors.
In the context of the new economic development objectives set at the end of last summer, we have announced new expenditures of approximately $450 million for next year. These funds will be used to support the achievement of our industrial development objectives, which include job creation, further training for Canadian workers, naval construction and repairs, as well as the establishment of an infrastructure to promote our raw material industries and our tourist industry.
Finally, in the last budget we announced important measures which will truly help us contain domestic costs after wage and price controls are phased out. At the same time, they will provide a more direct stimulus to economic growth by promoting investment and increasing the purchasing power of Canadians.
All of this has started to bring about some results. The number of jobs has gone up significantly since 381,000 new jobs were created between November, 1977, and November, 1978, including 123,000 in the manufacturing sector. Our trade balance is good and still improving. The use of our manufacturing capacity has expanded during the first half of this year and has now reached the usual level. Confidence is increasing.
Last February, the premiers endorsed the general principles of industrial and economic development I already mentioned. But we went further together. We developed a sophisticated consultation and review mechanism involving businesses as well as unions and governments. Working groups have been established to evaluate the present situation and the future prospects for 21 different manufacturing sectors as well as
December 13, 1978

tourism and construction. Those working groups have met with some 350 representatives from Canadian enterprises and more than 50 authorized union representatives, most of them presidents of affiliated unions. People from universities and the public service were also involved in that study. All those groups have produced reports and made a total of 850 recommendations on concrete measures.
All those reports have been submitted to the public and to a steering committee composed of five representatives from unions, five from businesses and one from the universities. The report of that steering committee was published last October 23. It includes a summary of sectorial reports and makes a number of specific recommendations.
The government committed itself to respond to that review of various industrial sectors and to give it a new thrust. A first series of response to the steering committee report has just been published. The premiers met two weeks ago to study the progress made and they have agreed that all governments should work very seriously in that respect. We also agreed on the success of consultations and the need to further them in a way acceptable to all parties concerned. However, I wish to express today my congratulations and thanks to all people who have been involved in those consultations. They have been of enormous service to the country, Mr. Speaker.

It is time, Mr. Speaker, to take the next step. We need to continue and strengthen the process that most recently resulted in the second tier exercise, and to ensure by policy decision that needed action is taken: action to influence the development of industries and regional economies to the benefit of all Canadians; action to integrate programs and activities providing direct support to industry in order to increase effectiveness and minimize red tape; and action to foster co-operative relationships with respect to industrial development with the provinces, with business and labour and with other public and private organizations.
To lead and concert these actions, I have proposed the creation of a new Board of Economic Development Ministers.
Under the leadership of its president, that board will be charged with: defining an integrated federal approach to the provision of direct support to industry and economic development in Canada, including government procurement policy, both by industrial sector and by region; it will be charged with reviewing and co-ordinating proposals by departments prior to their submission to cabinet or Treasury Board; and, finally, it will be charged with developing mechanisms to improve and to integrate program delivery at the local level.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Buchanan), who will sit as ex officio members of the Board of Economic Development Ministers, will provide that board and its president with essential counsel and support.
The other members of the board at the outset will be the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner), the
Economic Development
Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard), the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell), the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen), the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Gillespie), and the Minister of State (Small Business) (Mr. Abbott). Other ministers will sit in at meetings of the board that deal with matters affecting their responsibilities; the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc), the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), for example, would be amongst these.
1 should emphasize that individual ministers will continue to be responsible for the administration of their departmental programs, but their efforts in this area will be led and concerted by the new Minister of State for Economic Development. In addition to his role as President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers, that minister will: advise Treasury Board on the allocation of financial and other resources to programs that provide direct support to industry and economic development, including programs in the field of enterprise development, employment creation, regional expansion, resource industries and researcn and development; and he will lead and co-ordinate the efforts of the government to establish co-operative relationships with the provinces, business, labour and other groups to promote a healthy, dynamic and regionally balanced industrial sector.
The purpose of this reorganization is to focus and streamline our efforts in this area, to do more with what we have and to do it in a more co-ordinated and consistent way. To underline this, the budget and staff authority for the ministry of state will fall within the already announced budgetary and staff ceilings of the government, so that no new dollars or person-years will be required.
The economic measures we adopted in August are being implemented according to the principles we enunciated in October of 1976 in the white paper called "The Way Ahead". In that document we said:
Canada's economic prospects in the 1980's are matched by few other industrialized countries. Canada's opportunities for continued real growth lie in its relative wealth of resources, its abundant food producing potential, its technology, and, of course, its highly skilled and educated population. They lie, not least, in Canadians' capacity for enterprise. But to take advantage of these opportunities, to ensure that our substantial potential is indeed attained, Canadians and their governments will have to meet a number of major challenges.
I am confident that the Board of Economic Development Ministers, under the leadership of its president, will make a major contribution to meeting these challenges and, with the co-operation of all Canadians, will help to lay the foundation for a decade of prosperity in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning I want to say to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that I understand other engagements will take him out of the House shortly. I appreciate his publicly drawing attention to that as his reason for having to be absent during a portion of my remarks, those of the leader of the New Demo-

December 13, 1978
Economic Development
cratic Party and others who may want to take part in this debate.
I should say to him also that we welcome him back from wherever he has been, and certainly on behalf of everyone in this House I want to assure him of our continued interest in whatever it is he will be doing.
First of all, I want to deal with the general problem of bringing some order to the management of government in an age that is growing more and more complex and it becomes more and more difficult for governments to bring some kind of coherence and direction to their affairs. There is no question that there is a very serious management problem that faces any kind of government. That problem is likely to continue being serious as the growth of government continues and as demands upon government become more complex.
In my judgment-and 1 think it is important that this be raised at the time of the creation of yet another layer of government activities by this administration-that natural problem that is associated with growth and complexity has been very seriously aggravated in Canada by the way in which this particular government has approached organizational problems. It has approached them by throwing aside for all practical purposes the traditional central instruments of policy decision in a country like Canada. There has been a virtual destruction of the cabinet of Canada as a source of policy. I am not going to comment on the other evidence of destruction in this particular cabinet. That is there for all to see.
What is important in institutional terms is that with previous governments under previous prime ministers it was clear that the place where policy decisions were taken was the cabinet room. It was clear that a C. D. Howe, a Jimmy Gardiner and other ministers of that era, and, indeed, ministers of the era in which the Prime Minister himself first came to Ottawa during the days of the Pearson government, were clearly people at whose desk the buck stopped. They were people who were called upon to make final decisions, who had power to summon information and who had direct access to the ear of the prime minister, and thus were in a position to act on that information.
That era is finished as far as this government is concerned. It is finished because of a deliberate attempt to move away from cabinet for motives which may well have been valid, although the experience over the last decade has shown that they were very badly considered. It was decided to move away from cabinet in the name of co-ordination and efficiency and to vest the power to decide in agencies other than the elected ministers of a government responsible here on the floor of this House of Commons. This, of course, has been accompanied by an excessive concentration of power in the hands of appointed bureaucrats in the Privy Council office and in the Prime Minister's office .
I should say in passing that this has been quite a new development in Canadian history. There is nothing new at all about public servants, senior public servants in particular,
[Mr. Clark.)
making decisions; that has always been the case. They have always had a heavy influence on decision-making. Some of us in the elected body of government think it is too heavy, but it is in the nature of things that those who come up through the public service should exercise an important influence on policy decisions in fields in which they have detailed, day to day knowledge. What is new is that this Prime Minister, in the interests of efficiency, put aside his cabinet as the central source of advice, and did not turn to the traditional public service, turning instead to a new group of public servants, by and large people chosen by himself and chosen with a purpose, one of the criteria being their ability to fit into his particular view of how government should be organized and what the country was.
We consequently saw the power over decisions move away from cabinet, its traditional source, move away from traditional public servants, and instead become concentrated in the Privy Council office and in the Prime Minister's office . That is an example of one thing that was done. I want to return later to some of the implications of that development as it pertains to the Canadian parliamentary system.
Another factor that is seriously aggravating the difficulty of governing in this country is the difficulty of getting decisions. One difficulty in the way of coherent policy has been excessive insistence on secrecy by the government opposite. My colleagues and I, along with members of parliament from other parties in this House, have made the point before that this is probably the most secretive of governments in the western world, it is not only Canadians at large who do not know what is going on in the government which their tax money pays for; it must be immensely difficult for ministers of the Crown, and indeed for the Prime Minister, to have any certain sense of what is going on in a government where a habit of secrecy has grown up, where a habit of keeping things away from people has grown up. People should know those facts because once you begin to shut out the wider world, the inevitable effect is to shut out the smaller world, no matter whether that is the cabinet, the Privy Council or the Prime Minister's office. They have to have information if they are going to make decisions that will be intelligent in the context of a complex and changing country.
A third action by this government which has seriously aggravated the very difficult problem of organizing to deal effectively with national policy has been the insistent and consistent restriction of the House of Commons, and the restriction of the ability of the House of Commons to hold government accountable. It remains a matter of grave concern to me, sir, and to others who have an interest in the system of parliamentary democracy, to know that one of the first acts by this government in relation to parliament-it was certainly the first thing that happened in their first year of office in 1969- was the imposition by closure of changes in the rules of this House of Commons which took away the power to control spending. By removing that power to control spending, it removed the power of this parliament to scrutinize what was going on in government. This consequently removed from the
December 13, 1978

ministers, from the public servants and from the appointed little elite in the Privy Council office and in the Prime Minister's office the constraint of knowing that what they might be doing was subject to challenge and question by members of parliament here in this House of Commons. That pattern was established very early in their regime.
By the way, sir, that was the first time in the history of British parliamentary tradition that closure was used to force a change in the rules of the House of Commons. This insistence on keeping parliament distant from its job, interfering with parliament's ability to control, to know what was going on and to hold government responsible, has been a part of the pattern and the approach of this government to parliament.
All of us speak most truly when we lose our tempers. When the Prime Minister lost his temper in this House some years ago and referred to members opposite as being mere nobodies when they were 50 yards from the House of Commons, he was expressing the view of parliament as an institution which has ever since informed this government that that is a view which is inconsistent with, and runs against, the very basic history and purpose of parliament from its earliest days. The refusal to let parliament play its role of holding the government responsible has seriously aggravated the already difficult problem of bringing coherence and direction to the management of government.
Along with others in this House I have often spoken on the subject of secrecy. We intend to open up the system by the introduction of a freedom of information bill along the lines proposed by my hon. friend, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). Recently on an allotted day we spoke about some of the changes we would want to see in parliamentary practice so as to restore to parliament the power to hold government responsible, the power for which parliament was created and the power which was taken away by this government as one of its very first acts.
Let me speak at a little more length about the role of cabinet traditionally in the Canadian parliamentary system, because there has not been much opportunity to do so in this House. I suppose there are two authorities to whom we can turn for testimony as to the change in the central role of cabinet. One source would be authors who have described the works of parliament and governments over the years in Canada, in Britain and in other systems which have the parliamentary tradition. From this particular source it will be found that the verdict is consistent, that it has always been the cabinet in which the power to decide was located and situated. But perhaps an even more eloquent expression of the change that has occurred in Canada under this government, a change that has involved making the cabinet of Canada insignificant, is offered by the practice of very many strong men who came to this House of Commons as members of parliament in the expectation that the tradition of cabinet as the place of power would continue, but who were forced to leave or who found themselves wanting to leave parliament when they found that the cabinet offices that they held had less influence than the particular portfolio had held a decade ago, or indeed that they
Economic Development
as elected ministers of the Crown had less influence on public policy events than members of small, appointed elites of friends in the Privy Council office and the Prime Minister's office .
The real testimony concerning the gutting of the Canadian cabinet as a place of decision comes from people like the Hon. John Turner, the Hon. Donald Macdonald and the Hon. Gerard Pelletier. The people who came to serve in a system where cabinet had power and the ministers had power found instead that they were serving in a system in which it was possible for the Prime Minister and his advisers, for example, to call in seven economic experts and locate them in the Privy Council or in the Prime Minister's office so they could second-guess the minister of finance on national budgetary policy.
That is a precise symbol of what happened under this government in regard to cabinet over the years and the result has been the gutting of the cabinet, the removal from cabinet of the power to establish national policy which, in common sense, has to be the only system within which the democratic, responsibly elected government can function. To put this in perspective, it might be interesting, sir, to-


An hon. Member:: I hope so!


Charles Joseph Clark: One of the urban guerrillas is awake, I see.


Mr. Gillies:: Socialist International!


Mr. Broadbent:: Just two of them.


Charles Joseph Clark: Their leader tells me that not many of the urban guerillas are awake. 1 cannot contest that. It would be interesting to set on the record some of the figures of growth in the Privy Council office during the period in which it has become the centre of power in Canada, when the cabinet was gutted of the influence it has traditionally held through our system. In 1968 the number of persons permanently employed in the Privy Council office was 63; in 1977 it was 469. The total budget for the Privy Council office is up from $6.4 million in 1968 to $22.2 million in 1977.
One result has been a policy-making process so centralized and so cumbersome that many of the best ministers in the government, people who knew the tradition under which ministers had the power to decide, have quit in frustration. They have done so rather than try to work through the maze of this intermediary agency which has been put in to replace the traditional system of cabinet government.
It is interesting to note that during the same period the budget of the Prime Minister's office increased from $767,000 in 1968 to $2.7 million in the current year. One of the results of this growth has been a continuing isolation of the Prime Minister not only from his cabinet colleagues but also, sadly, from the people whose problems he and his government are here to respond to and resolve.
There is no question, as I said at the beginning, that some of the problems of organization of a government in difficult times

December 13, 1978
Economic Development
are complex in their nature. And there is no question that the structure presently in place for governing Canada at the federal government level is not working. Clearly there need to be changes made. It seems to me and to this party that there are some principles on which we should stand. One of those should be that ministers of the Crown, elected individuals sitting in and responsible to the Elouse of Commons, should set policy; that responsibility for setting policy, for making the final decisions, should not be cast off to some little elite sitting in isolation in the Privy Council office or the Prime Minister's office, but that it should be the ministers who carry the can. Indeed, one of the shocking things about the last two or three years in the House of Commons has been the frequency with which ministers have been prepared to chuck off to public servants the responsibility which should have properly been residing with ministers. They do that because they have become accustomed to being people through whose offices the buck passes rather than being people in whose offices the buck stops.
Another thing which is obviously important here is the capacity in the capital of Canada not only to set policy but to co-ordinate policy, to make sure, if I might draw some hypothetical examples, that one level of government is not proposing a policy of decentralization at the same time as another level of government is entering into extensive lease-purchase arrangements to buy new space in communities which public servants are being asked to leave. There needs to be some kind of co-ordination to ensure that the left hand of government- the large, left hand-knows what the right hand of government is doing. Clearly, this needs to be another of the principles which should be followed when considering the restructuring of government in this country as a means of trying to ensure that responsible politicians carry the burden of decision and assure co-ordinated direction to national policy.
Normally I would not talk about the internal preoccupations of opposition parties, but since this is a matter of some concern to us today, and since the problems of opposition will be a matter of continuing concern to the hon. members across the floor as soon as an election is called, I think it might be appropriate for me to make reference in passing to the fact that we in opposition, trying to do our job of keeping on top of what government is doing, have had to face some of those problems of organization ourselves and we have certainly taken a long, hard look at what is going wrong with the system which is in place now.
It became clear to us earlier this year that one of the things that is lacking in the Government of Canada-and, frankly, it was also lacking in our structure-was a capacity to co-ordinate the initiatives and the interest of members of parliament, whether ministers of the Crown or critics of ministers of the Crown, who have specific responsibilities. There has to be some means of bringing these different ministers and spokesmen together. For that reason we in the official opposition established the practice of appointing policy co-ordinators, the practice of establishing six broad fields-economic policy, social policy, cultural policy, policy relating to transport and

communications, food and resources, and policy relating to government operations.
I have designated a senior colleague in my caucus to serve as the co-ordinator, generally free of line responsibilities, so that he can draw together the activities of other spokesmen and put together a view of what was going on in relevant ministries and departments on the other side. This has worked reasonably well and, indeed, when I first heard the press release indicating the change which is the subject of our discussion today I thought that perhaps the government had borrowed yet another idea from us and was attempting to bring into its own structure that same process of co-ordination which we have pioneered here and which, by and large, has been a success in terms of the organization of our ability to meet our responsibilities. Without offence, I wish to say that this pertains only to parties in opposition which have enough members to organize, but I am sure the leader of the New Democratic Party will take at least an academic interest in what I have been saying.


An hon. Member:: If he gets some of the Independents in with him then he'll be okay.


Charles Joseph Clark: I understand he has established a co-ordinator responsible for policy on referenda but that, too, is his problem.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, when the government announced this new proposal, I thought they were borrowing the mechanism we had set in place. But as we look at what they are doing, we realize that they have not done so. They are adding here an extra layer with a co-ordinating responsibility which is not clear in the press release, not clear in the order in council and not clear, I regret to say, in the Prime Minister's remarks, in terms of its limits. It is not clear to us-and perhaps the new minister will enlighten us with some detail-exactly who is co-ordinated and when, exactly where his responsibilities start and stop, exactly what is the continuing power of, say, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) in relation to a budget or, say, of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) who, I think, is the only one of the seriously victimized ministers present in the House today. Where do those regional economic expansion responsibilities start and where do they end? The minister has pointed to three ministers, and I want to come to that point because they are not exactly equals. As I read the terms of reference, some of them appear to have some powers of their own. Others, such as the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner), seem to have been reduced to mere shadows of their former selves, such as their former selves were.


Mr. Lessard:: That's not true; you will find that out.


Charles Joseph Clark: The minister says that is not true and that we will find that out. The point is that we do not know. We have introduced before us now a piece of legislation setting up a new mechanism. It is not at all clear where the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion fits into this.
December 13, 1978


Marcel Lessard: I know, y


Charles Joseph Clark: The Minister says he knows. If he knows, he is doing considerably better than his colleague, the Minister of Finance, who the other day under questioning in the House of Commons indicated that he did not know exactly where he sat in this new arrangement. However, what we have here is not a level of co-ordination; what we have here is another level of confusion, and my great fear is that in its interest in putting forward to the Canadian people a face of concern about economic questions, to this government, which is so preoccupied by cosmetic solutions and which has so often ignored real solutions, is putting forward something that looks like action but which in fact will mean confusion. That would be particularly unfortunate for a country facing the problems we are now facing in Canada.
Interestingly, of the departments which are rattling around loosely in this corral over which the minister opposite presides, no department has been replaced but several departments have been very significantly changed. In my judgment, and as I read the terms of reference, four of them have been very seriously downgraded, if the new minister has any powers at all. If he does not and if this is simply a cosmetic appointment, then there has been no change. However, if he does have any powers at all, then four existing ministries have been seriously downgraded, and a fifth, the Ministry of State for Science and Technology, has been virtually eliminated. It has virtually been gutted of all its powers.
One of the principal ministries which has been downgraded is industry, trade and commerce. As I read the responsibilities of the new minister, it seems to me that the present Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the temporary member for Crowfoot, is left with responsibility for little other than the metrication program. There are members on this side of the House who will savour with particular pleasure the idea that the man who before his conversion was the leading critic of the metrication program has now been reduced to having control over only that aspect of government.


Gerald William Baldwin: He has been converted to metric.


Charles Joseph Clark: My colleague, the hon. member for Peace River, suggests that the minister has been converted to metric. Let me deal for a moment with the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, because it is quite clear that if the new minister's responsibilities mean anything at all, they absolutely gut the mandate of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. They take away the basic role of that department. That is quite explicit. Because in describing the central role of the new minister, the Prime Minister says that it will be a role of formulating and developing new and comprehensive policies as well as of leading and co-ordinating the efforts of the Government of Canada to establish co-operative relationships with the provinces, business and labour.
That description of duties strikes right at the heart of the whole operation of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce last February to co-ordinate the 23 sectoral task
Economic Development
forces and to bring them together in a comprehensive package. That was the purpose of that program, which was the major program of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce at the time, and that purpose has been taken away holus-bolus, completely. That program is not to be co-ordinated; it is to be run, as nearly as we can make out from these terms of reference, by the new minister. So we have the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce standing with one foot in a swimming pool and the other foot in the metric system, with nothing else to hold on to or to administer.
Another department which has been very significantly changed-and I am sorry that the minister responsible had to leave the House temporarily-is the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. I say in passing that one of the failures we in this party most regret has been the failure of this government in relation to regional economic expansion. We remember, and will naturally ensure that the citizens of Atlantic Canada remember whenever an election is called, the undertaking by the Prime Minister to establish a kind of Marshall Plan for Atlantic Canada.
We remember his undertaking to solve the traditional problems of disparity. We know what has happened. We know that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has been an insignificant department. It has been up against the giants in this government. Every initiative it has taken has been undercut by other policies whether those policies were in the field of tariffs, which have continued discrimination against the Atlantic region, in the field of tax policy, which has failed to recognize the particular needs of that region, or in the field of concepts like "user-pay", which has deeply undercut any sensible prospect of development in Atlantic Canada. Nonetheless, the shell of the department remains.
There is a very real question as to what responsibilities the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion will have when the explicit mandate of the new super minister is to establish, and I quote:
-the most appropriate means by which the Government of Canada may . . . have a beneficial influence on the development of industries and regional economies in Canada-
What in the world is the mandate of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, if that is the mandate of the new super minister? I see that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion has now returned to the House, after my having described how his department has disappeared and has been taken over by his colleague, the new super minister.
The third department which is quite significantly downgraded, it seems to us, is the Department of Finance. The Minister of Finance, for reasons on which I am sure the new minister will elaborate, is only an ex officio member of this new board. It is not exactly clear what that means or how that distinguishes him from other ministers. Perhaps it means that he has the right to say a quiet "no", whereas the others are expected to snap to attention whenever the super minister gives an order. As has been suggested, perhaps some sort of liaison is to be kept open between the Minister of Finance and the super minister, who is really responsible for establishing economic

December 13, 1978
Economic Development
policy in the country. However, there is no question at all that there has been a significant downgrading of the role, the power and the influence upon policy of the minister, the ministry and the Department of Finance in the country.
1 note that one of the powers of the new minister is that he is free to ask advice of the Minister of Finance as long as-


James McPhail Gillies: As long as he doesn't take it.


Charles Joseph Clark: As I understand the provision here, the Minister of Finance is free to take actions in his field as minister, as long as they have no impact on economic development. It may well be that that is simply a description of what has been happening in Canada for the last two or three years, because there has been a minister of finance who has had singularly little positive impact upon economic development. This raises some very real questions as to what the continuing role of the Department of Finance and the Minister of Finance will be and whether any of their initiatives which would have an impact upon economic development in the country have to be cleared with some other minister. Just exactly what is the relationship here? Whatever it is, it is clear that the Minister of Finance and his department have been downgraded by the establishment of this new super ministry. The super minister's responsibility will be to do what all of us assumed the Department of Finance has been doing or has been responsible for doing.
I do not think it is clear exactly what the responsibilities of the new minister are in relation to the budget, but certainly on the off chance that this government's budget might have some positive impact on the economy, he would appear to have the obligation to vet that proposal in advance and he might very well have the power to veto proposals for a budget put forward by a minister of finance.
Once again the fourth ministry which, in our judgment, has been significantly downgraded is the Treasury Board. I say that with some regret because one of the causes of great difficulty with this government has been the degree to which the role of the Treasury Board has been diminished in recent years. There is now a provision in these terms of reference which empowers the new minister to advise the Treasury Board-it is not a question of "he may advise"; it is a question of "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.
It would seem to me that that term of reference takes a great deal of the raison d'etre of the traditional purpose of the Treasury Board away from the President of the Treasury Board and vests it in the new minister. What is he to be left with if he has to take advice which "shall be given" by the new minister? Of course, he would be left with approving LIP grants and one or two other matters, as well as his pay, but most of the important responsibilities that have an impact on the economic development of the country have been taken

away from the President of the Treasury Board and his department has been seriously downgraded.
The Department of Science and Technology, to which the Prime Minister made some reference in his remarks, has been virtually eliminated. Its shadow lingers on. It is attached to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, but its power is passed quite clearly to the new super minister who has the authority to initiate and co-ordinate research and development studies, to initiate proposals for new R and D policies, programs and activities, and to evaluate existing and proposed policies, programs and activities to ensure consistency with federal development policies, and to recommend changes therein.
The question to me is: If you are going to take away the powers of the Minister of State for Science and Technology, why not wipe out the department and have those powers exist in only one place in the government, namely, the new super ministry, rather than continuing the fiction that we have a super minister with those powers as well as a Minister of State for Science and Technology with those powers? It reminds me of the situation of the environment where we have two ministers doing one job. It makes very little sense in that case as it makes very little sense in this case.
I must say in passing, since the Prime Minister spoke glowingly about the importance of research and development to the Canadian economic future and about the priorities that his party and his government attach to research and development, that I would like to restate our view that one of the most serious mistakes that has been made by this government- which means it was serious indeed, because they have made a number that were dangerous to this country-was their deliberate decision to buy technology abroad. We are paying for that daily in the leakage out of this country of innovators and researchers, of people whose initiative could help make Canada competitive in the world. They are leaving the country because it was the deliberate policy of the government in the name of research and development to drive them away.
There are a few other matters of curiosity in relation to the ambit of this new ministry of state. For example, while I see the Prime Minister has corrected himself, or left the door open to correction, in his remarks today, the Department of Agriculture is not one of the resource-related departments which will be co-ordinated by the super ministry, nor is the Department of Fisheries. In other words, to the Trudeau government agriculture is no longer a resource for Canada, nor is fisheries a resource for Canada. In a country like Canada you simply cannot have a national industrial policy designed to encourage the development of our farm resources without taking account of the tremendous potential for growth in the country in the fields of agriculture, fisheries and forestry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Prime Minister indicated that these departments would be left outside at the outset. That suggests that at some later time they might be incorporated within the ambit of the new minister. My colleague, the hon. member for Don
December 13, 1978

Valley (Mr. Gillies), asks what is going to be left. Perhaps we have stumbled on something here. Perhaps we should not vacate the field to the Allan Fotheringhams and the Marjorie Nichols. Perhaps, in fact, there has been a de facto resignation by the Prime Minister of Canada and what we are being asked to approve here today is the establishment of a new board which will concentrate all the powers of all the other departments under one minister, and then the Prime Minister can step aside and no one will notice he has gone. Perhaps that is what this is all about.


Mr. Andras:: Better leave it to Fotheringham; he is much better.


Charles Joseph Clark: We are faced with the question as to exactly what is left in the place of these formerly important ministers which have now had their status downgraded. What exactly are the powers of this new super minister? What can he initiate? What can his officials initiate? What can they stop? What is their power independent of other ministers in the cabinet? What exactly are they there for?
These are questions which 1 am sure the minister himself will try to answer, but I must say that on the record of this government, our view as to what they are trying to do with this new super ministry is quite simply this: They are trying to fool the Canadian people. They are trying to pretend there is now a new seriousness about economic policy and economic problems in the country, and they are putting together a structure which will look good and do very little.
We in this party, committed as we are to the view that there must be significant structural reforms if responsible members of the government and of parliament are to be able to influence national policy in this country, think we are not receiving that kind of proposal today. We think that what we are receiving today is simply a smokescreen, simply another gimmick by a government that has excelled in gimmicks; and we think there is no major new power that will be assigned to this minister. We think he will have no power to start important things, no power to stop important things, and that his job is simply to be the freshest in a round of soothing faces that the Government of Canada put forth to a community concerned about the failure of economic policy.
What has happened here is that late in its life-indeed, in the first year of its afterlife, its fifth year in office-this government has recognized that it will not be able to survive another election without an economic policy. That was the reason the election was delayed. That was the reason we had the sermon from on high on August 1. The government knew that it could no longer get away with ignoring fundamental economic problems in the country. But true to form, instead of responding to these problems, instead of going to their root, instead of bringing in budgets that might have stimulated growth in the country, instead of starting on a serious exercise of getting the provinces together and getting the other partners in the community together to work toward common economic goals, this government resorted to a series of gimmicks. They
Economic Development
brought in a street fighter as Minister of Finance and that was going to solve everything. It has not.
Since the government was not able to change the Minister of Finance again, it came up with another gimmick which it hopes will persuade Canadians that the government is serious about economic development. The government can indicate that of course it is serious, that it has a new minister. But, there are serious questions as to which responsibilities of other ministers this minister will take, and what he will do with them. That is not his most basic problem. It is that he is supposed to co-ordinate economic policy, and the government has no economic policy to co-ordinate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We have a change of face, a change of clothes, but not at all a change of direction. As questioning day after day by all parties has indicated, there has been no change in the willingness of the government to face the need to stimulate growth in the economy and to bring some order to economic affairs in the country. Instead of policy, we have a new structure and a new gimmick. In the judgment of my party, that is not good enough. The country needs a change in direction in national economic policy, and not simply a change in the face of the apologist. Unfortunately a change in the face of the apologist is all we are offered by the proposal before the House today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the new minister across the chamber is politely indicating that he will be right back. I appreciate his consideration, because my comments will deal with the subject we are supposed to be dealing with today, namely, economic planning. If ever we needed a demonstration of the problems with our economy, we received one today from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). He came in from a flight from Paris and rambled on for approximately 20 minutes. His speech was an abbreviated version of the one which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) made some weeks ago. I wish he had taken a longer flight and skipped the entire debate.
Then we heard from the official opposition. 1 listened with great care for an indication whether they were for or against planning, but I did not hear one. It appears the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) is in favour of "significant structural reform." If this debate was taking place in any other industrial country of the world, such as Norway, France or Japan, whether social democratic governments or not, it would have been laughed at. The hon. Leader of the Opposition is going to Japan. I hope when he returns that he will feel free to talk about economic planning. Japan is one society which talks about it and does it.
First I should like to deal with the problems in general and specific terms, and then I should like to deal with some workable solutions to those problems. We have had ten years
2100

December 13, 1978
Economic Development
of the Prime Minister. If we have ever had an admission of failure in terms of national economic policy, it was today when the Prime Minister indicated the need for the proposed planning mechanism. After ten years, the number of unemployed in Canada has tripled; inflation has risen by 100 per cent; income distribution between regions in Canada and individuals within regions has worsened; the rich have become relatively richer and the poor relatively poorer; and there is a problem which is central to our economy, that is, an increase in the degree of foreign ownership in the manufacturing sector, the core sector for an advanced economy. This has increased, not lessened, in the past ten years. These are the significant ten-year old developmental problems associated with the government.
At one point in his speech, the Prime Minister said that it is time to take the next step. He should have taken that step ten years ago. He should have made a commitment ten years ago to deal with economic planning in a manner which would have ameliorated the problems of income distribution, unemployment, inflation and foreign ownership in the manufacturing sector of our economy. In all of those categories, the situation has worsened in the past decade, not improved.
Not only is the need to create this new department an admission of failure of the long run during the past decade, but it is a significant failure also in the short run. This was recognized by the Minister of Finance who brought in three budgets. There is a lower growth rate in our economy than was promised as recently as last August, when the Prime Minister had a new vision after the summit meeting in Bonn. The three budgets have not improved the degree of economic performance in the economy. Monthly the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) witnesses the continuing imbalance in trade in manufacturing products between our country and others. This should be a central concern of economic policy.
There is a need for planning in an industrially advanced economy such as ours, and I will attempt to make some suggestions in this regard. Before doing so, I should like to refer to the tacit admission of the failure of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion which in recent years has seen the problems of regional development worsening rather than improving. The economically advanced areas of the country have made more progress, while areas in Atlantic Canada and the province of Quebec have fallen behind.
There have been both short-run and long-run failures which have been acknowledged by the need, at long last, to create a new instrument for planning. The particular mechanism being proposed, is it good or bad? Surely that question should enter this debate at some point. It is relevant to consider whether what is being proposed will work in our economy. To put it euphemistically, the Minister of Finance, the President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers (Mr. Andras) and the Prime Minister have conflicting views as to what this new entity is all about.
The government chose to name the former president of the treasury board the new President of the Board of Economic

Development Ministers. That significant phrase came right out of the corporate experience of the government. Initially the Prime Minister said that this new entity would deal with macro and micro economic policy. He made this distinction. The Minister of Finance was to deal with one, and the President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers was to deal with the other. Perhaps it was the first time in Canadian history that a minister of finance indicated that he was not sure of the difference between micro and macro, that everyone believed that he was telling the truth. The Prime Minister gave one description. A number of ministers have interpreted the purpose of the board entirely differently from the Prime Minister. What will happen to the old cabinet committee on economic policy? Will it remain in existence? Will it remain unused, as has been the case in the past decade? Surely if we are talking about a planning board or instrument, some discussion is relevant concerning the priorities. Certainly this would be true in any industrially advanced country.
What will the board do? The new President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers indicated that he believed it would be a one-stop shopping service for business looking for government support.


Robert Knight Andras: The hon. member is taking that comment out of context.


John Edward Broadbent: The Department of Finance has been a one-stop shopping service for years for corporate handouts which have been unrelated to specific economic performance. He left every implication that he really did not see planning as being relevant at all. The implication he left with me, at least, was that all the government could do was get out of the private sector's way. In some areas that is entirely appropriate, but anyone should know, and I am sure the new president of the board does, that in a modern market economy that is scarcely enough, and there are a number of positive things that a government must do. Some leadership in directing the economy is required. He has downplayed the whole planning role and suggested it is essentially going to be a negative instrument to get out of the private sector's way.
The Minister of Finance in his budget speech went out of his way to say that in a market society planning was probably inappropriate. That statement was specifically in his speech and surely could not have been accidental. Again this is a point that would not be made in any other industrial country. No other industrial country would have the government party and the official opposition somehow saying that in the 1980s, nearly into the twenty-first century, it was inappropriate in a market economy to have planning. That boggles the mind, Mr. Speaker.
The government neglected in the terms of reference for this board to make any reference to the problems of Canadian women. Regional problems are referred to, quite appropriately. Problems in respect of income equality between individuals is referred to and that is entirely appropriate. But where is
December 13, 1978

reference to that other great dimension of inequality that is still with us in this country in this century, and that is equality of the sexes? Is there any reference there at all? I suggest there is not. This is not merely an academic point.
The government of the United States, to its credit, has established affirmative action programs embodied in legislation which have become the central concern of that government in the United States in respect of economic areas for women. There is nothing, I repeat, nothing, in the mandate given to this new board which deals with that other central inequality in our country which surely should be a leading concern of politicians at every level.
Perhaps the most important structural point I want to make about this board, and I say this candidly, is that a similar mechanism was tried by the Labour party in Great Britain and it failed. Harold Wilson, when he was prime minister early in the 1960s, set up within the cabinet structure in England a planning mechanism which sounds almost identical to the one that has now been established by the Government of Canada. About four years later Mr. Wilson abolished it because it did not work.
Let me say something about why it did not work because it is central to my understanding of whether the government is really serious about what it is doing. In Great Britain it was abolished by Harold Wilson, according to George Brown, the former minister of the Crown who had responsibilities similar to those now taken on by the new president of the board here-


James McPhail Gillies: You have read the Crossman diaries.


John Edward Broadbent: Yes, I have read the Crossman diaries and some other information that goes with them. It was abolished because, according to what comes out in the Crossman diaries and what comes out of the published statements by George Brown, who was a minister, that minister was not given overriding authority in respect of economic policy. There was continual confrontation and conflict between the minister of finance, or the chancellor of the exchequer in the British system, and the man who was supposed to be responsible for planning.
If you look at these terms of reference, and if you look at the order in council that was passed to set up this new department, you will get no indication at all that there is a recognition of the problem that is to be faced by the Government of Canada. Quite obviously conflict remains. The responsibilities of the Minister of Finance have not been changed. The president of the board now has some over-all general policy for some kind of economic development, but when there is a conflict how is it to be resolved? Surely if the government were serious about economic planning it would have to give the new ministry precedence over the ministry of finance, and that should have been spelled out in the order in council setting up the department.
Economic planning should have an overriding priority, and if there is a conflict between the Ministry of Finance and the ministry of planning, planning should have the priority, par-
Economic Development
ticularly if that is to be the leading concern in the country. However, that is not the case here. I repeat, we are establishing a planning mechanism which even on paper has been demonstrated in the experience of the government of Great Britain to be a failure in practice.
This leads me to my conclusion, and that is that the Government of Canada is not any more serious about planning now than it has been in the past. The Minister of Finance has to be taken as indicating the true direction of the government when he said in his budget address that the Government of Canada really did not believe in planning in a market economy; and the new president of the board has to be taken seriously when he said that really what this new agency is going to do is provide a one-stop service to the private sector in relation to some kind of handouts or the removal of red tape. I would repeat that the removal of red tape is desirable in many aspects of the government's relationship with the private sector. I would also repeat that that cannot be the centra! purpose of the new planning board.
My colleagues and I see the creation of this new instrument as simply one more public relations gesture by a government that has recognized at long last that its unpopularity is due in the main to its failure to come to grips with the Canadian economy, to deal with regional inequalities, to deal with income inequalities between individuals and to deal with inequalities between the sexes. That is why this government is unpopular. Instead of coming to grips with these problems in a serious way by setting up a serious planning instrument, this government has taken over a program that failed in Great Britain, that was recognized as a failure and abandoned by that government. It is now attempting through public relations to convince the people of Canada before the next election that it takes economic problems seriously. We just do not believe that.
Let me briefly say something about why we think it is important to plan in an economy, particularly in the context of the problems we are facing in our land at this time. I want to indicate first of all that the planning we have in mind is not simply intervention in the economy. We have always had intervention. Let me say to my colleagues in the Tory party that I wish they would read some Canadian history. If they did they would recognize, for example, that unlike the United States we have always had more government intervention in our economy than they have, by a long shot. In fact, if this country had relied simply on market principles it would not have come into existence.
The first government of Sir John A. Macdonald recognized that something called "national policy" was necessary at one point. He recognized that when you have regions as disparate as Atlantic Canada, the west coast, the prairies and Ontario, with the tremendous market forces at bay to the south of us in the United States, government intervention would always be required in our economy at a much higher level than in the United States.
It is not merely intervention that is needed, because all too often that simply means something negative-buying up rail-
80067-61 'A

December 13, 1978
Economic Development
ways and creating the CPR at the expense of one generation, or bailing out the aircraft industry again at the expense of another generation. Planning as it has been demonstrated to exist in other countries of the world, and as we see it performing here, has one essential purpose, and that is to take steps now to create something better down the road. Economic planning is central to dealing with the great inequalities that exist between individuals, regions and sexes. It makes sense, particularly in a land like ours, to have a very sophisticated instrument of planning, and perhaps the most sophisticated in the world will be necessary to do the job that is required in our land.
We want further planning, not for its own sake, not to give some bureaucrat or academic the vicarious pleasure of seing an idea worked out, but because it is essentially a human device for human purposes. In this context Sweden, Belgium, Norway, France, Japan and West Germany have four or five-year economic plans with regular submissions to their parliaments. When a government is formed in one of those countries, one of the central tasks it has is to come before the legislature with the economic development plan for the next four or five years, which becomes the central matter for debate on both sides of the House. I wish the other national parties in this country would accept that idea and come before parliament with a plan on which we could have meaningful debate, instead of trivial, nitpicking matters such as whether some bureaucrat is taking another bureaucrat's function or whether a ministry is being removed which ought to be continued in operation. Such debate is most trivial.
What are some of the concrete problems facing us in 1978 and how do we propose to deal with them? The first issue is regional inequality. We believe that it is not right for central Canada, Alberta and British Columbia to see our fellow Canadians in Atlantic Canada and the eastern townships in Quebec dependent on some form of hand-out. It is an illusion to believe that the private sector will remove the difficulties which exist in these areas.


An hon. Member:: That is what caused them.


John Edward Broadbent: Indeed, that is what caused them. Market forces if left on their own will always mean that areas such as Toronto, Montreal and Alberta will get richer. If we are going to come to grips with the problems in Atlantic Canada, then we have to do what other countries have done and move in with public capital and long range plans. Why is it inappropriate for the Government of Canada to borrow money for development when it is entirely appropriate for Bell Canada or other huge conglomerates to borrow capital and pay interest on it for the same purpose? Government development through public sector investment can be just as effective financially in the long run, and more so when we are dealing with regional inequality, as in the private sector.
There is in Cape Breton the potential for serious long-range development. Instead of having 30 per cent unemployment, or

unemployment ad infinitum, and being dependent on handouts which they do not want, they could be financially independent. There are many people on that island who are trained in the steel industry and mining industry. Capital should be invested to build the most modern steel facility in the world for that area. I know that the market situation for steel in the world is tight at the moment, and it may mean for the next year or so that the operation would run at a loss. But I repeat a point I have made in this House before. General Motors does not plan for six months down the road; it plans for six years and, indeed, six decades down the road. It is time we started doing the same thing at the national level. The only way this can be done with federal funds, because Nova Scotia certainly does not have the funds. Such an investment would put that part of Cape Breton on a creative, economic basis on which it could start contributing to the rest of Canada. 1 am sure that Cape Bretoners would like that much more than the rest of us.
There is another province which has only been part of Canada since 1949 on the east coast and which has one of the last great fisheries in the world. While in Japan recently I was asked why it was that most of the fish caught off Newfoundland was caught by vessels owned by Norway, Poland, Russia and other countries. I had to say that for a variety of reasons the fisheries-


Mr. Breau:: You don't know.


John Edward Broadbent: There is a member who has said that I don't know. I can tell him that I have spent some time studying the problem with the government of Newfoundland; and if the hon. member does not watch out his party will lose all their seats, because they have totally neglected this region. I would say to the hon. member who comes from that part of Canada-


Herb Breau: New Brunswick.


John Edward Broadbent: I said "that part of Canada", if the hon. member would just listen. I did not say Newfoundland. I know very well that the hon. member is from New Brunswick.
Instead of providing hand-outs and unemployment insurance to Newfoundlanders, who do not want that, we could do for them what we did a few decades ago for our farmers on the prairies; we could set up a national marketing board like the Wheat Board, which goes around the world seeking markets for Canadian farmers on a collective basis because a single farmer cannot afford to pick up and travel around the world. Because we have had the Wheat Board and because we have a modern agricultural industry on the prairies, Canadian farmers, for all their problems-they like the rest of us are going through some economic difficulty-are among the richest in the world. Why can we not do that in Atlantic Canada?


Herb Breau: We are.


John Edward Broadbent: Why can we not do this in Newfoundland- provide capital for inshore and offshore fisheries and fish processing plants, and then get out and hustle for the markets?
December 13, 1978

The hon. member has made some critical observations. 1 was in that part of the country recently and was told by the fishermen that instead of using the opportunities provided by an 85-cent dollar to expand our markets in Europe and the United States, they are simply taking in higher profits. That short-run perspective of the business sector is just the opposite to what the Japanese have done. The private sector in Japan has at least had the sense to take lower profits in the short run so that they would expand in the markets and grow in the future. We should be doing this kind of thing in Atlantic Canada with government initiative and imagination.
In recent months new investment has come to the west coast from Japan. They have begun to provide financial assistance to people in our fishing industry on the west coast because those people could not get that financial assistance from the Government of Canada, their own provincial government or the banks of Canada. Japanese investors have come in with better terms, and in exchange are tying that aid to long-range market commitments in Japan.
While it may be beneficial in the short run for fishermen to get a good price right now, they are being locked into long-range commitments to sell fish at a price down the road which may not be advantageous to Canadian fishermen. Another factor is that the Japanese are receiving the fish in bulk and having the processing done in Japan for re-export. Instead of having a developmental policy on our west coast which would not force our fishermen into such long-range commitments, and instead of having a developmental policy which would have the fish processing plants in Canada rather than Japan, we have allowed and we are allowing continuing inroads by a foreign country into a major sector involving Canadian resources.
This kind of imaginative use of federal capital which would take substantial amounts invested in the short run for long-range benefits is what is required. We did it once with the railways of this country. There were a lot of mistakes and give-aways and that ought not to be repeated. But there was a time when we had a long-range perspective in mind in building this country. It is time we had that perspective in terms of industrial development.
The second area of concern is the manufacturing industry. In that context the economic tragedy is of such proportions that one does not quite know where to begin. There are countries in Europe with much smaller populations than ours that have a durable and creative manufacturing base, independently owned. There are countries like Sweden with economic, geographical problems, thousands of miles in length, very diverse, wintery conditions and small markets that have managed to do about 1,000 per cent better than we have in developing their own manufacturing industry. The reality is that we have relied too long on the excuse of a small market in Canada and difficult geographical circumstances. These are just excuses for inaction.
Economic Development
The fundamental decision that was made in this regard in my lifetime, and the decision that has to be reversed, is one associated with the name C. D. Howe and with the Liberals of that time. Some two decades ago they decided that because of our small population this country ought to survive by selling off our resources and we would buy back finished products. It was thought we would have the net benefit because there would always be a shortage of resources and it was argued that other countries, particularly the United States, could produce goods at a lower cost because of their larger populations.
The chickens came home to roost, Mr. Speaker. We are discovering that third world countries such as Venezuela, Mexico, Indo-China and others have resources that we thought were unique to Canada. Instead of cornering the world market on nickel, copper and other minerals, we are facing competition from the third world for resources. As a result we have big lay-offs by companies like Inco in Thompson, in British Columbia and in dozens of other communities. We can no longer rely on selling off our resources as the key to prosperity even if it made sense, and for many reasons it does not.
Since the time of C. D. Howe the industry of western Europe has modernized and has become sophisticated. Japanese industry has also modernized and as the people of Quebec know very well, third world countries are producing shoes and textiles of a sophisticated type. We have lost out on both grounds.
The domestic manufacturing industry, which was set up simply to service Canadian markets and not to go after exports, has to compete with a modern Europe and modernized third world countries in manufacturing. The resources that we have wanted to export as a source of prosperity are having to meet competition from third world countries.
We have to deal with this problem on a long-range basis, Mr. Speaker, and I was hoping to see some commitment to that effect by the government. We have to deal with the problem of foreign ownership. It is not a matter of blaming the United States or Germany or The Netherlands for investment; it is a matter of recognizing who is to set our priorities. Is it to be people in other countries or are we to do it ourselves?
At this moment in Canada there are some 100 large companies which control more than 50 per cent of our manufacturing, mining and forestry industries. Of these, two-thirds are owned and controlled outside Canada. The result is that in 50 per cent of the business area there are companies that do not conduct their own research and development, companies that do not pursue exports because their parent firms in the United States or abroad do that. There are companies that do not innovate because, in the main, the parent firms do the innovation.
As long as we leave that structure intact, as long as we leave foreign control of our major manufacturing sector as the characteristic form of manufacturing in Canada, just so long will we remain in immense difficulty in regard to manufacturing.

December 13, 1978
Economic Development
The fundamental question for Canadians is: Who is running our country? Who is setting our priorities? Is it to be Gulf Oil, is it to be Phillips, is it to be Ford, is it to be IBM, or is it, for once, to be Canadians? Are we at long last to come to grips with this problem as other industrial countries have? I say on behalf of my colleagues that this kind of action is long overdue.
I should like to put on record some aspects of the economic development policy that we are advocating. First of all, we say that we in Canada should do as the Japanese did and as most industrial countries in western Europe have done, and as the United States did for most of the nineteenth century; we should ensure that most Canadian needs are met by Canadian production. We must restructure the Canadian economy to ensure that most Canadian consumer dollars are spent on goods and services produced in Canada.
Two or three ideas are central to the implementation of this proposal, not because they are dreamed up in some abstract way but because they have worked in other countries. We should realize where people are spending their money. It is known that 80 per cent to 85 per cent of Canadian disposable income is spent on housing, transportation and food. We should concentrate on these sectors. We should make sure we have the best housing industry in the world that could lead to exports in that field, and we should make sure that everything that goes into a house in this country is produced in this country.
In the transportation sector we should make sure that what goes into it is produced in Canada.
We should ensure that most of our food is produced in Canada. Agriculture associations meeting in this city in recent weeks and months have stated self-sufficiency in food as a Canadian goal. The New Democratic Party believes in that for the sake of security for Canadian farmers and as a Canadian economic objective. The more food we produce in Canada, the less we buy abroad and the fewer dollars we send out of the country. That makes good economic sense.
We should specialize in certain key sectors of industry. We should do what other industrialized countries have done and not spread all our economic investment over different sectors, but instead concentrate on the agricultural implements business, for example, and on food processing and equipment. Good economic arguments can be made for saying that they are key sectors in which Canadians already have some leadership in world terms which, if developed further, would lead to access to export markets, and this is very important.
Central to all of this has to be a major shift in resource policy. We as a people should be exporting steel products, not iron ore. We as a people should be exporting furniture and paper, not raw pulp and unprocessed paper. We should be exporting plastics and petro-chemical products, not unrefined gas and oil.
This is the central concern of my party for the development of Canada in the future. We must at long last recognize that

Canadian resources ought to be developed by Canadians primarily for the benefit of Canadians. That has to be a central economic concern. We must stop exporting our fish to Japan and buying back the finished product. We must stop exporting so much lumber to the United States and buying back the finished product. We must at long last begin exporting finished goods and not raw resources.
There are a variety of instruments to implement these objectives. In my remaining time I want to indicate how these goals could be achieved. The central reason that we have not done this before has nothing to do with our proximity to the United States or to geographic difficulties, or indeed with the cultural tensions we have experienced from time to time. It has everything to do with the lack of political will. That has been the central problem in this country.
There are a number of instruments we can use that have been developed by other countries which have worked well. One is tariffs. We must be very concerned now that we are moving from a high tariff country with no planning to a low tariff country with no planning. That seems to be the general drift of the GATT negotiations. In certain sectors we may have to create-


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Edward Broadbent: I appreciate the consideration of other members and I will try to be brief. We must use our tariff policy, but not in a mindless way. In changing tariffs we must, as other countries have done, build in in certain sectors non-tariff barriers so that we can preserve certain sectors now, and indeed lay the foundation for broader and more long-range growth in those sectors in the future. We must not simply phase them out, which seems to be the current inclination of the government.
With respect to purchasing policy, Mr. Speaker, in the United States for years they have had a policy in which something like 30 per cent of the purchases of the federal government had to be from small businesses. That happens to make good economic sense. Unlike large firms, most small businessmen do indeed compete and innovate and create more jobs.
We could have a purchasing policy like that in Canada where there is a commitment on the part of the national government to buy, say, 30 per cent of all their requirements from small businesses. Small businesses are almost uniformly owned by Canadians. They are not owned and controlled outside our borders.
Another instrument is the use of planning agreements. Planning agreements have worked very well in Holland, Great Britain, France, Belgium, Sweden and Norway. In these countries a specific set of tax policies is negotiated with major firms over a five-year period. In this way the firms know where they
December 13, 1978

stand and know that tax policy will not change from one year to the next. The private sector must be aware of that information. In return for specfic tax concessions, specific benefits would accrue in terms of creation of jobs, research and development and export commitments. Planning agreements are something that have worked well in other countries and ought to be duplicated here.
Another instrument we have advocated is the establishment of a Canadian investment fund. I could speak at great length about this, but 1 simply want to make the point that it has worked well in Sweden where a special tax is levied on large companies. If companies put money into this fund, they do not pay tax on that part of the revenue. The government then plans where that fund could be used best to stimulate new development, and then the private company from which the revenue was originally derived would ultimately receive a benefit. The important thing is that this could be an instrument of the government to make sure that development occurs in certain areas and in sectors that need it.
Second, in terms of the cyclical nature of the economy, in Sweden this method is used most effectively in stimulating the economy. The level of investment can be controlled in terms of timing as well.
Finally, as I said earlier, we say that certain key sectors which have a particular potential for export should be concentrated on for development. 1 repeat that planning is not something new. It is not something that did not work in other countries, and it is not a panacea. A commitment to planning now will not remove all our difficulties overnight.
In conclusion, planning in a modern economy has been undertaken in other countries and it has worked very well. On behalf of my colleagues in this House I say that it is time we planned. It is time that we made our decisions. It is time we shaped our future. It is time that Canadians controlled Canada.
[ Translation]


Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I first of all say a few words on this motion we of the Social Credit Party of Canada consider very important. On December 4 last, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), tabled in the House of Commons a motion dealing with the establishment of a Ministry of State for Economic Development. That motion followed the creation of a super ministry of state to revive the Canadian economy. I think it is right to say, Mr. Speaker, that with this government our economy is being not constantly revived but re-re-revived. First of all, at the provincial level, then at the level of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, and finally by the board for economic expansion.
You would think, Mr. Speaker, that they are now using a repeating rifle, particularly in the last few years, to try to revive the economy. And at what price, Mr. Speaker? That is
Economic Development
precisely what is important for the average taxpayer because after all those revivals, those multiplications, those duplications of departments, John Q. Public always ends up paying the bill. What is odd, Mr. Speaker, is that at the same time the government decides to reduce its spending, it is trying hard to increase them by creating new departments, always to centralize more and throw the weight of its taxation and spending power on the provinces which cannot take it anymore. The government seems surprised to hear the cry of the provinces against the central government.
The motion introduced today, Mr. Speaker, is a perfect example of the dictatorial behaviour of this government. We would be in favour of it if the purpose of the creation of the super-ministry was first to eliminate economically-oriented federal departments which are just a duplication of provincial departments in the same formerly-provincial areas which should be returned to the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. In this way, future departments would have to co-ordinate the efforts of provincial departments for a better performance at the national level.
But when we examine the formation of the Ministry of State for Economic Development we realize that that super-ministry will be a perfect instrument of centralization to further control natural resources and agriculture in every province which have been asking for the patriation of their jurisdictions in those areas.
We can thus see a duplication of departments in all sectors to the economy-forestry, mining, fisheries, regional economic expansion, energy in its various forms, science and technology, agriculture and food industry, and so on. A new department was created a few years ago, the Department of Amateur Sport. How is it that the government has so much money that it can-afford duplicating departments which already exists in the provinces? A little while ago I contacted the Minister of Amateur Sport in order to get a grant for our region, which this year will host a national curling match, so as to make this a success like in all other provinces. And every time I contacted this minister I received the same reply: no funds available for grants to regions or provinces.
The money was allocated to the Canadian Amateur Sport Federation. The government went to see the Amateur Sport Federation and distributed the money to the provinces. What it did, Mr. Speaker, was to appoint a minister to collect the money and send it to the federation just like it was done for many years. I believe we have reach a point where we may well wonder whether the Canadian government has too much money to do what it did in the past.
There is also the Department of Transport. For one year, I have been trying to come to an agreement with the minister on a matter which has been in suspense for seven years, that is the question of the Chibougamau airport. Neither me nor the elected representatives of the people concerned on the city council have succeeded. First of all, only one meeting was held

December 13, 1978
Economic Development
with the minister under the pretext that the Quebec transport department did not want to co-operate. In Quebec city we were told that it was Ottawa who did not want to cooperate. No one wants to see us. However, when there was an election campaign, the predecessor of the minister came to my constituency and especially to that part of the area where the people are separated by hundreds of miles from northwestern Quebec and the Lac Saint-Jean area.
Mr. Speaker, why must the government always duplicate everything that this department does, even though it does a very good job in my opinion? Of course, the department could be given more responsibilities. The government prefers to establish other departments instead of taking that money and distributing it. Mr. Speaker, that is only one example of the efforts made by the government to control all sectors of provincial jurisdiction. In the name of national unity, the government is doing everything to divide our country even more.
Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Prime Minister is well aware that not a single province is willing to give up one of its fields of jurisdiction to the central government. Every day we can read in the newspapers in the western provinces and in Quebec that these provincial governments oppose the centralizing tendency of the federal government. We may seriously wonder whether the federal government does not consciously want to prevent economic development in Quebec. The Prime Minister seems to have both feet in Ontario and his head in Quebec. What will be the results? Obviously to try to consolidate his base in Ontario but by doing so he also risks losing his head in Quebec or vice versa. Mr. Speaker, we had too many bad experiences with the super-department of federal-provincial relations which was headed by the current Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde), a department which was nothing more than a propaganda agency for the Liberal party of Canada against the Quebec government. Mr. Speaker, I will come back to that in a few moments.
We are afraid, Mr. Speaker, that this super-ministry will have the same effects as the Department of Federal-Provincial Relations, that is, first to increase the present crisis, the fight of some federal politicians against the Quebec government particularly and generally against the autonomy of the provinces, in order to lead to that federative dictature which the present government is hiding under the guise of renewed federalism. The Liberals are creating crisis ministries.
And I refer to the Liberals because I realize that the idea of the super-ministry was not the result of consultations with the various economic partners of our country but a result of the Quebec Liberal caucus held last August. And, in that respect, we can read in Le Devoir of November 25, and I quote:
Need we recall that, on the advice of its youngest members at its Mont-Gabri-el meeting last August, the Quebec Liberal caucus had proposed the establishment of a super-ministry of economic affairs.

To conclude, those are not the first emergency measures tabled in this House by the present government since 1968.
Let us remember, Mr. Speaker, the War Measures Act of 1970 which has yet to be justified. And what about the famous 1975 anti-inflation measures about which Mr. Paul Weiler, Chairman of the British Columbia Labour Relations Board said in the periodic Policy Analysis of last fall, and I quote:
One of the lessons we have learned from the experience of the Anti-Inflation Board is its incapacity to control prices and consequently the injustices caused to some workers.
So, according to the comments of that labour relations expert, those measures were not only inefficient but absolutely unfair. In January 1975, the Prime Minister established the Federal-Provincial Relations office. Far from demonstrating to the citizens of all provinces the advantages to stay together, that office directed by the present Minister of Justice, through its famous publications, tried only to demonstrate to Quebeckers the non-viability and the bad aspects of sovereignty in Quebec. Considering its promotional efforts, that office should have been called the office of the constitutional crisis.
After the budgetary cutbacks of last August, it is now the generalized state of crisis, a crisis which we fully owe to the Trudeau government that has been officialized under the name of the Board of Economic Development Ministers which is actually a department of economic crisis. Mr. Speaker, just like all other Canadians, Quebeckers are fed up with these war games. Canada needs competent and responsible individuals to implement serious programs aimed at economic recovery. Let the government discard such projects and stop increasing the cost of the federal government with its super ministries of crisis. The members of the Social Credit Party of Canada will then be pleased to give their support to this government once it understands for good as I said earlier that these are not crises which will solve the most serious problem presently afflicting Canada, namely the economic issue.
To conclude my remarks Mr. Speaker, in the name of all my colleagues, I think that rather then creating again a new ministry, the Prime Minister should seriously study the proposals put forth for so many years by the Social Credit Party of Canada which are first and foremost a guaranteed annual income which would remove all the serious problems we are now experiencing with unemployment insurance. The unemployment insurance recipients are no longer the only ones with problems because now the government itself is compelled to make as many cutbacks as possible to incite people and the recipients to stop cheating the system.
I hope the Prime Minister will do as he did in the past, because a number of positive suggestions have been made by the Social Credit Party of Canada, especially by our late leader, Mr. Real Caouette, who led the government to realize how important it was to delve on the economic problem, as faced by middle income people, and the likes of which the
December 13, 1978

newly established super-ministry of economic development is destined to solve.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to contribute to the debate stemming from the resolution tabled by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on December 4 on the establishment of the Board of Economic Development Ministers. I would firstly indicate that 1 support the motion as strongly as 1 can. Time has come in Canada to set up a process ensuring better co-ordination and cohesion in our economic development programs and policies.
I would like at this point to draw a distinction which apparently escaped the attention of a number of people who commented on the Prime Minister's announcement at the end of November last and his resolution tabled on December 4. 1 noted this afternoon the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broad-bent), the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby also made the same error. Apparently they do not see the difference between fiscal and monetary policies on the one hand, and policies concerning the development of the internal economy, the domestic economy of Canada. There is a difference. When the Leader of the Opposition criticizes the fact that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) will lose influence, he nearly implies the whole development issue can be left to fiscal, monetary and tax policy-making in general. This is wrong in my view. I give my wholehearted support to the establishment of this new board, especially since it is chaired by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Andras). He has been in cabinet for so long we do not always remember his constituency, but I think the former president of treasury board is the hon. member for Port Arthur. The minister has proved in the past can give practical meaning to government policy, and therefore ensure that all government programs better meet with the situation-at hand.

Mr. Speaker, today the Leader of the Opposition could really just have repeated one of the speeches he used to make in 1973 when he was his party's critic on matters having to do with government organization. He does not seem to have evolved very much since those days with regard to government organization. The Tories, and particularly their leader, criticize the fact that the Prime Minister and this government have given a greater role to the Privy Council office, to the Prime Minister's office and to the institution of cabinet.
The Leader of the Opposition says that ministers should have more personal power and that that would be better for Canada. However, giving more power to the Prime Minister's office and to the Privy Council office is not to reduce the influence of politicians. It is not to reduce the influence of parliamentarians and parliament. The Prime Minister is, after all, a member of parliament. We seem to forget that. He is accountable not only to parliament but also to his caucus and to a political party. He must make sure that in the management and the chairmanship of a large committee, which is
Economic Development
cabinet, he has proper advice on a political basis in order to make sure that whatever the civil service is doing and whatever parliament is doing are proper and responsive to the political situation.
Both before and after becoming leader, the Leader of the Opposition has said that this process reduces the effect of parliamentarians. He does not understand how to lead a government or to fill the position of prime minister. I think that a prime minister must make sure that the elected part of government is competent and well advised as to what goes on in government. It has never offended me that the Prime Minister's office has been strengthened in the last ten years, because the Prime Minister is an elected person. He is accountable not only to parliament but also to his caucus and to his political party.
The Leader of the Opposition suggests that ministers should have more power. I jotted a few notes down as he was speaking. He did not say this, but it struck me that what he was really saying-


Mr. Paproski:: You don't know; you were asleep.


Herb Breau: -was that ministers are just an association of politicians.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Don't misquote him.


Herb Breau: 1 am not misquoting him. I am not even quoting him. I am interpreting the position he was taking. I felt that in his mind he was taking the position that ministers should be an association of politicians. To me his position was that ministers should meet over lunch once in a while-sometimes in Jasper after skiing-to let each other know what is going on in government.
That is the kind of government the Leader of the Opposition would lead. That is a backward view. That is a view of governments in the 1940s and 1950s when governments did not have much to do in society. The role of government then was merely to make sure that there was a Department of National Defence, a Department of Finance, a Department of National Revenue to collect taxes, a Treasury Board and a few other things. In those days parliament sat only a few months of the year. Governments did not have much to do. However, in our modern society things have changed, and I wish the Leader of the Opposition would come out with some better ideas than the ones he learned in school 20 or 25 years ago.
The Privy Council office, the cabinet and the Prime Minister's office should co-ordinate what goes on in government and make sure that things are put together. To me that is the proper way to run a government.
Again the Leader of the Opposition complained about the terrible thing that happened in 1969 when we took the control of spending away from parliament. I was here in 1969. The hon. member for Rocky Mountain was not here but he may have been an assistant somewhere. Spending control has not
2108

December 13, 1978
Economic Development
been taken away from parliament; parliament still votes on the estimates and on appropriations. If it wants to refuse appropriation, it just has to vote against it.
Apparently the Conservatives are not sufficiently competent or efficient to bring forward exactly what the weaknesses are, in their terms. They complain that it is the institution of parliament that is not good enough. What happened in 1969 was that we provided for a better system of examination of estimates. The opposition is complaining about having the control of spending taken away from the House, but what has been taken away from them in reality is their capacity to frustrate the work of the government by filibustering debate on the estimates, and that is what they are worried about. Now there is a more effective way of examining the estimates in committees than was possible in the House of Commons.
What is happening is that opposition members do not always come to committees because the members of the press gallery are not always there. Opposition members do not do their homework in committees, so they complain and say they would like to be able to come to the House and make speeches here and frustrate the work of the House.


An hon. Member:: You are misleading the House.


Herb Breau: There is better control of the spending of government now than there ever was before. What opposition members have lost is the capacity to frustrate the work of the government.


An hon. Member:: Absolutely false.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not think the hon. member is trying deliberately to mislead the House, but I wish he would keep to the bill instead of trying to tell us how to run the committees and whether or not members appear in the committees. That has nothing to do with the bill before us at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that that is not a point of order.


Herb Breau: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I agree the hon. member did not have a point of order and he was wrong when he spoke about a bill. We are debating a resolution. I wish the hon. member had also told his leader that he should have spoken about the resolution instead of the phony things he spoke about which have nothing to do with the resolution before us.
The Leader of the Opposition said that DREE has been ineffective and has been undercut because other departments have done what DREE has been doing. What the government is doing by the establishment of the Economic Development Board, after eight or nine years of experience with DREE, at a time of very rapid economic growth in Canada, and now that we have serious adjustments to make, is to refine the means and the tools for the economic development of the country. This board will bring about better co-ordination and cohesion and will ensure that economic development programs of the federal government are more effective when we are not in a
period of rapid growth, when we have to make serious economic adjustments, when we have to decide, because of the new economic context, what exactly will be the role of the government and what kind of society we want to organize. It becomes more important now to assure ourselves that the tools of the government are more efficient. This board does not reduce the influence of the other departments.
The role of the Minister of Finance is to deal with monetary matters, taxation matters and economic policy. The Leader of the Opposition does not know the difference between economic policy and economic development programs. There is a large difference between them. He said this afternoon that the country's economic policy will be impaired because we will have better means of making sure that economic development programs work better. Does he mean he would not have economic development programs and he would leave everything to macroeconomics? Does he wish us to believe that in the enunciation of a budget, which is one statement of economic policy, one can deal with all possible problems in terms of economic development programs? That is a complete fallacy; there is no way you can do that.
The Leader of the Opposition mentioned the role of the Treasury Board. I hope that the new board will not be a board exactly like the Treasury Board which, by its very nature, must be a regressive institution because it must ensure that all programs and initiatives stay within a certain fiscal context. The job of the Treasury Board is to put on the brakes. The role of this economic board is one of a positive agent. It is to make sure that things are done, not like the Treasury Board which makes sure that things remain within the fiscal context which has been set by the economic policy. That is the basic difference between the two boards, and I am glad to see that the government makes that difference.
In Canada we have in one part of the country, in the west, great opportunities in terms of economic development, and in the east the economy lags. However, I would just like to point out that the challenge in both cases is exactly the same. When things go well, as they do in western Canada and in the north, when we have an opportunity to do things, the challenge is to ensure that the organization of society will be such that what you want will happen. In areas which need assistance, the challenge is there also. The challenge is the same whether there is too much development or not enough development. I am glad to see that at this time in our economic history we will have this kind of co-ordination in our economic programs at the federal level.


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, December 14, 1978