1978-03-01

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. My motion concerns the over 30 years that the peoples of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania have been victims of Soviet imperialism. In view of the fact, despite the rhetoric of detente, that hundreds of thousands of individuals are today the victims of Soviet political concentration camps, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That this House condemns Soviet aggression and, further, that this House supports the legitimate aspirations of the Latvian, Estonian and Lithuanian peoples for the freedoms which ought to be the birthright of every human being.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for discussion, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, can be done only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



NATIONAL UNITY


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. Since the Prime Minister's recent declarations that the opening of mail caused the apprehension of a terrorist, and his further assurances in respect of the bugging of offices of members of parliament during his term of office are, to put it charitably, now open to question, and keeping in mind that on various occasions he has assured the country that separatism is dead, unemployment licked and inflation wrestled to the ground, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That the Prime Minister refrain from any further predictions or assurances and continues the only role at which he seems to have any success-as chief Liberal "snollygoster".


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion under Standing Order 43 regarding a specific and important matter. The Minister of Finance, in Montreal in a speech to the Canadian Club, stated: "The fundamental news at this time, of course, is that Canada's economic recovery is gaining momentum". He also said: "Economic growth in the fourth quarter of 1977 was at or above the long-term potential rate for the economy". Finally, he said: "The outlook for investment is improving". The Statistics Canada report issued on Friday, and the one yesterday, contradict everything the minister said. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
In view of the fact that the minister's department received this information from Statistics Canada well before he gave his speech in Montreal, that this House of Commons condemns the Minister of Finance for his deliberately misleading and erroneous statements on the Canadian economy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



REQUESTED INCREASE IN TARIFFS ON TEXTILES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with a matter of utmost importance and urgency.
Since the textile industry in Canada is in a very delicate situation due to lack of strict controls over imports, and since this forces companies to cut down considerably on production, which leads to many workers being laid off, especially in the
80031-6 9 */2

March l, 1978
province of Quebec, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That the House recommend that the import tariffs be increased in order at least to save what is left of this important industry.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, such a motion can be debated only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. My motion concerns a document which was circulated by the Liberal party at its recent convention, misrepresenting the achievements of the Minister of Transport, among others. For example, this document describes the minister as a "road" scholar-that is spelled r-o-a-d-when it is well known that his special field is really government jet transport. Also, the document depicts the minister's brother-in-law as smiling, when he stated in the Canadian Magazine that he had not smiled for seven years. Goodness knows, he had no reason to. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
That the minister make a statement on motions as to whether he will follow his past practice of personal and legal action to prevent the publication of this apparently libellous tract in the province of Saskatchewan against Liberal candidates in that province who have either worked for or are related to the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: -with regard to statements made by the attorney general of Ontario indicating that the RCMP obtained illegally confidential psychiatric information on individuals from the Ontario Health Insurance Plan, and that the RCMP were acting under direct orders of the federal government, made by certain federal departments. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis):

That the House condemns this serious invasion of privacy for which the ultimate blame rests with the government, and not the RCMP who were acting under deplorable government orders; that the Prime Minister order the Solicitor General to immediately release the names of the government departments and any cabinet ministers involved and what steps are being taken to prevent any recurrence of such incidents; and, finally, whether or not any provinces other than Ontario have been involved by the government in this despicable, disgraceful and disreputable political conduct.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that a ten year-old child from outside Saint John, New Brunswick, was flown to Halifax on Sunday for treatment of a confirmed case of Reye's syndrome, a disease linked to the spruce budworm spraying program, in view of the fact that this is the thirteenth confirmed case of the disease since 1968, which has resulted in at least five deaths, and in view of the fact that the Minister of State for the Environment (Mr. Marchand) has not used the powers of this department to control provincial agencies which are continuing to spray, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That the minister make an unequivocal withdrawal of his department's indirect support for aerial spraying as started on December 13, 1977, and restated yesterday in an ATV interview.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS REQUESTED DISMISSAL OF MINISTER FOR TELLING RACIST JOKE-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the sensitive nature of the task of the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Lalonde) involving understanding of the regions of Canada and awareness of the feelings of people in all areas of Canada, and in view of the insensitive and racially motivated "Newfie" joke told by the minister for the supposed amuse-
March 1, 1978

ment of the readers of the Maclean's magazine of February 6, properly entitled, "Marc Lalonde: Wrong Man, Wrong Place, Wrong Time", I move, seconded by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall):
That this House regrets the insensitive and insulting racial joke of the minister, advises the minister that he is next to go, and calls on the Prime Minister for dismissal of the minister and for disavowal of the gauche, ignorant and arrogant remarks of the minister who hopefully will be known as "Marc Lashort" as a result of his brief tenure as federal-provincial relations minister.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Given the fact that record high levels of water in the Great Lakes have been extremely destructive this year and have already been the cause of much damage to public property and the cause of much hardship to private property owners surrounding Lake Ontario and the Bay of Quinte, the fact that these levels are being maintained at such a high level by artificial means in order that an extra kilowatt or two might be squeezed out, and in order to keep Lake Ontario as deep as possible for shipping, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees):
That the Minister of State for the Environment be directed to act immediately through the St. Lawrence Seaway authority to develop a plan for shoreline protection and beach erosion control along Lake Ontario and report on such plan to this House as soon as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



REQUESTED STUDY OF GRAIN HANDLING PRACTICES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to raise an urgent matter. In view of the fact that the export of grain is so important to counteract Canada's balance of trade deficit, as well as being vital to the economy of western Canada, in view of the fact that 20 vessels are now waiting to be loaded at the port of Vancouver, resulting in mounting demurrage charges, and in
Vacancy
view of the fact that apparently a Canadian Wheat Board delegation had to go to Japan to improve relations with that country because of uncertainty of delivery and loading ability,
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger):
That the entire matter of sales and loading of grain be immediately referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF EASTER SEAL TIMMIES

Mr. Speaker:: Before beginning the oral question period, I know all hon. members would want to join me in recalling the fact that as we roll around each year to Eastertime, we think immediately of the Easter Seal campaign and of the symbol of the Easter Seal, Timmy, who has been representative of that campaign in such a successful way in the past.
This year, we are happy that present in our gallery are the Easter Seal symbols, in the plural. I say that with emphasis, because this year the Easter Seal Timmy is not one, but two- twins from Hamilton, Ontario-Peter and Paul Settle. I am sure they will carry on the very successful tradition of the Easter Seal symbol for a very successful compaign in 1978.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



VACANCY

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received a communication notifying me that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely, the Hon. Donald S. Macdonald, P.C., member for the electoral district of Rosedale, by resignation.
Accordingly, I have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a new writ of election for the said electoral district.

March 1, 1978
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. The minister will recall that after he was finally able to introduce into the House of Commons his employment tax credit legislation, he said to me on January 25 that the program "will be in place by March 1 ". Today is March 1. I would like to ask the minister when Canadians who want to take advantage of that program will be able to do so.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the program is not ready as yet. I understand that the Minister of Employment and Immigration is working on it. We hope it will be introduced in the next few weeks.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance could not get this matter into the House when he should have brought it in: he delayed it two or three months. He gave us a clear undertaking that the program would be in place by March 1. Canadians who are looking for this program to help create jobs in this country have a right to know when it will be in effect. Will the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Employment and Immigration tell us whether the administrative arrangements are in place, and give us a date we can count on for the implementation of that program?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I said that the program will be in place this month. The administration of it will be under my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I will inquire and report to the House as soon as I have spoken to him.


INTRODUCTION OF AMENDMENTS TO BANK ACT
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have a further question relating to delays on the part of the Minister of Finance. Yesterday's figures indicate that domestic growth in Canada is at a rate dramatically lower than the minister predicted. That is, in part, due to uncertainty about the Bank Act. Nearly four years ago my colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton West, first raised the question as to when the government would begin the review of the Bank Act. When will the House of Commons see the new Bank Act?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the House will consider the bill dealing with the revision of the Bank Act as soon as the government is through drafting it. The bill is still at the Department of Justice and has not yet been approved by the government.


Charles Joseph Clark: Just as with the employment tax credit, this minister cannot get Bank Act legislation through the bureaucracy. Canadians who want to know what is going to be the shape of economic policy have a right to see the legislation as quickly as possible. I do not want the excuse from the minister that the legislation is tied up in some of the departments. It is his responsibility, not that of the Minister of Justice. Can the minister give us a firm undertaking that the new Bank Act will be presented to the House of Commons before we rise for the Easter recess?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I hope so, but I cannot guarantee that, because the bill is not yet ready.


FORECASTS OF ECONOMIC RECOVERY-APPARENT DISCREPANCIES
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance, who seems to be entangled with the bureaucracy. The minister assured the nation, in Montreal on Monday, that the long-term potential for the country is still good. To use his words: "We are going into the new year from a strong basis of real growth". On Tuesday, the minister's comments were refuted by Statistics Canada figures which indicated that domestic demand in this country was actually negative in the final quarter. Would the minister indicate how he could be so wrong within a day of the actual figures being published, or are we to believe that he is simply dealing in rhetoric and hoping that people will not compare his rhetoric to the facts?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as I stated yesterday, I am somewhat disappointed by the economic growth of Canada for the third quarter. However the economic growth for the second half of 1977 in terms of real growth was 4.3 per cent which is a fairly reasonable performance. Perhaps it was not as good as I would have hoped, Mr. Speaker, but I state the facts as they are, and Canada's economic performance for 1977, as compiled by Statistics Canada, ranked third, after Japan and the U.S., which puts us ahead of all other industrialized western countries.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance admits that he is disappointed with the figures released yesterday. In view of the disappointing year of 1977, which augurs poorly for 1978, would the minister at least reconsider his position of not giving the Canadian taxpayer a break through new legislation in the form of tax credits, bearing in mind that on average this month the Canadian taxpayer will start paying $50 per month more than he paid in February or January?
March 1, 1978


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the taxpayers of Canada received a tax break of $100 in the last two months. That was a very stimulative policy and cost the treasury more than $700 million. I am amazed that the hon. member, who is always complaining that we are running too large a deficit, now suggests we should run an even larger deficit.


INVESTMENT IN CANADA
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. In a speech made in Montreal two days ago, he said that the outlook for investment was improving and, with reference to the last quarter of 1977, that we were beginning this year "from a strong base of real growth." Figures released by Statistics Canada yesterday and on Friday not only put a different emphasis on this matter but flatly contradict what the minister said in his speech.
Considering that his department have had the correct figures from Statistics Canada for at least a week, as the Prime Minister indicated in the House, why is the minister deliberately misinforming the people of Canada about the real situation?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have not misled anybody. I checked the text of that speech carefully with my officials. I think the performance of the Canadian economy in the second half of 1977 was very strong compared with that of most other nations. I do not think a base of 4.3 per cent real growth is a weak base.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Figures produced by Statistics Canada show the net decline in investment in the last quarter running at an annual rate of 10.8 per cent. How can the minister possibly say that we are starting from a strong base of real growth when there is this decline in investment? When is the minister going to start speaking frankly, because the people of Canada want to hear the truth? When will he stop misleading the people and bring in programs to clear up the situation?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I said there is some strength that I have seen in the economy. For example, in the last quarter there was a strong increase in the surplus of exports from the Canadian economy, but the demand at home was too weak. Through the measures we introduced last fall, we have given private citizens more than $2 billion in stimulus for 1978, including the $100 they received in January and February. In December, we passed measures, which came before the House last spring, to stimulate the corporate sector. All those elements led me to say-and I still believe it-that we will have a real growth of 5 per cent in 1978.


John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Of course, the minister did not answer the question I asked, but in his answer he acknowledged that domestic demand was not as great as he had hoped. In other words, the mini-budget of last fall and the budget of last spring failed. Domestic demand is not there to stimulate the manufacturing sector,
Oral Questions
which is operating at only 80 per cent capacity. Can the minister assure the House now that he will take corrective action before Easter, and announce tax cuts, instead of saving such matters for an election campaign after Easter?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the most fundamental problem we face is that people must have confidence in the economy. The doom and gloom approach-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: How can we, with you?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The approach the opposition has is not helpful. On top of that, the tax cut which I proposed came into effect January 1, 1978, and the hon. member refers to statistics that are previous to that date.

[ Translation]


TEXTILES-INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT RECEIVED INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING TARIFFS
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that the textile industry in Canada, and especially in the province of Quebec, is going through extremely rough times for lack of control over imports, could the minister tell the House if he has received from the Canadian Textile Institute representations urging Canada to object to lower tariffs in order to adequately protect the Canadian textile industry?

Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the House that the Quebec caucus is keeping me up to date on events in the textile industry. In answer to the hon. member's question, I would like to inform him and the House that textile imports for 1977 were 1 per cent less than those in 1975. It is encouraging to note that in the recent report of Statistics Canada to the nation, investments were up considerably in the textile industry as at the beginning of this year.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to thank the minister for informing us that the Quebec Liberal caucus is looking into this matter. But if that is the case, the last part of his answer is not quite factual. If the caucus is looking into the matter, it is because something is wrong. I would like to ask the minister seriously if he intends to recommend that Canada agree to lower its tariffs according to the Swiss formula, which would have a disastrous effect on our industry? Can he assure our industries that there will be no tariff reduction?

March 1, 1978
Oral Questions


Mr. Horner:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the House that the multilateral trade negotiations respecting the Swiss formula of a 40 per cent cut represents merely a weighted average. In some instances one might grant a higher percentage, and in others a lower percentage. If one looks at the manufacturing sector paper which my department put out, one can see the four or five specific industries in which imports have made the greatest inroad into our domestic production. Textiles is one of those industries. It would be logical to assume that our negotiators would argue strongly for a much lower reduction than the Swiss weighted average formula of 40 per cent.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Where does the logic come in?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: With regard to the textile industry, investment, which is not large, in Canada is up something like 23.6 per cent this year.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Considering the importance of the matter and the fact that there is a Textile and Clothing Board which is specifically there to advise regularly the minister about the conditions, has the board asked the government not to reduce tariffs on imports, especially on textiles?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, the Textile and Clothing Board has kept me informed of their wishes and of the progress in the industry. I would inform the hon. member that I intend to table a report on motions this afternoon with regard to textiles and handbags.
* *
*


AECL ENFORCEMENT OF EISENBERG CONTRACT
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources: it arises out of the disturbing remarks yesterday of the chairman of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. I am sure the minister is well aware of them. Since the chairman of AECL states that he does not know whether Mr. Shaul Eisenberg will perform his agent's services-which is a different opinion from the one he expressed before the public accounts committee last November 17, when he said, "I fully expect the services to be rendered over the six or seven-year period"-and since the minister gave his personal authorization to the renegotiation of this contract by Mr. Campbell, what steps has the minister taken to ensure contract compliance? Also, has he asked Mr. Campbell for an explanation as to why AECL, in particular, would not attempt to enforce such a contract?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I think the chairman made it quite clear that AECL is going to insist upon enforcement of the contract because it is not satisfied with invoices that were submitted to it nearly two years ago with regard to post-contract services. The corporation rejected, and did not pay, that invoice; nor has it received any other invoice. I can only assume that the agent has received the message that he will have to provide much better accountability for these invoices in future.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In light of the contradiction between the minister's statements today and Mr. Campbell's statement yesterday, is Mr. Campbell going to introduce another statement today contradicting his statement of yesterday but agreeing with the statement of November 17? Will the minister indicate why he approved the kind of open-ended financial commitment that was made in the renegotiated contract-a financial commitment that has cost the taxpayers of this country well over $15 million already? Can he offer any assurance that services are being performed by Mr. Eisenberg, in light of the fact that the one document that has been submitted was rejected by AECL? What can he give by way of assurance that any aspect of service is being performed by Mr. Eisenberg in spite of the further payment of $2 million that has been made?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the chairman made it clear yesterday that he is seeking an undertaking from the agent on that point.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: It is obvious that the minister is in no position to answer. It is incredible that the situation has been allowed to drag on for so long. In addition to the more than $15 million that has already been paid to Mr. Eisenberg-for which, according to the Auditor General, and now the public accounts committee, no satisfactory accounting has been made-is the minister still going to permit a further payment of more than $3 million as agreed to by himself and Mr. Campbell without any adequate means of ensuring contract compliance? Are we going to see further expenditure of public funds simply frittered away on this very bad agreement made by the minister and Mr. Campbell?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is flogging an issue here in which he took no interest before. He was not a member of the committee. He has suddenly surfaced as a person who is interested in a subject which engaged the attention of many other members during this period. I suspect that if he had looked at the issues, I would not have to remind him once again that no payment has been made on the post-services contract. I do not know how many times I will have to repeat that for his benefit. If he likes, I will repeat it once more: the post-services contract could be as much as $5 million. No payment was made; the invoice was rejected.
March 1, 1978


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. What issue or situation made it necessary for a Canadian Wheat Board delegation to travel to Japan to smooth out difficulties?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the trip by the Canadian Wheat Board commissioners was not simply to smooth out difficulties; it was part of the ongoing, very close relationship between the Wheat Board and the buyers of grain in Japan, where we once again have sold a very large quantity of wheat and barley for this year.


Thomas Gordon Towers: With modern technical facilities at its disposal, the Canadian Wheat Board can locate every boxcar of grain in western Canada. Why does the board not know the date of arrival of grain vessels and the type of grain to be loaded, so that west coast grain exports are not held up as much as they are at the present time, with 20 boats waiting there?


Mr. Speaker:: With all due respect, I cannot see the connection between the previous question and this one as a supplementary.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of National Revenue: it arises out of magazines sent to me by the Calgary police force. The three magazines are entitled High Times, Rush and Head. They deal with such matters as paraphernalia and equipment for the smoking of marijuana, growing it, importing it, using it, and they also encourage the use of LSD and hard drugs.
How can the minister justify these and other magazines coming from New York and other places in the United States, in light of the regulations which govern Customs with reference to the importation of these kinds of periodicals which counsel crime and are against the Criminal Code of Canada? Under the Narcotic Control Act, if young persons are caught importing marijuana, they can receive a sentence of seven years imprisonment.


Hon. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, many items come into this country, such as narcotics, which customs officers do not even see. The hon. member knows that. Municipal and provincial governments have the right to license those who sell magazines-municipal governments in particular. They can control this by the simple fact that if these people do not do what the municipalities want them to do, they can take away their licence. They can do away with sex shops and newsstands, if they wish.
Oral Questions
I do not understand why the hon. member insists on putting the entire blame on Revenue Canada, or the government of Canada, when this situation can be controlled at the local level. Many magazines are not allowed into Canada, specifically those the hon. member has mentioned. I will be interested in continuing discussion on this matter with the hon. member. I will follow up this question and give an answer with regard to the magazines the hon. member has mentioned.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I wish to follow up this matter by asking the Minister of Justice a question. The Minister of National Revenue talked about the right of municipalities to issue licences to those selling these magazines. I am speaking of breaking the law by counselling crime. I am at a loss to understand his answer. Will the Minister of Justice, as the chief law officer of Canada, recommend to the provincial attorneys general that this matter be investigated? By permitting these magazines to be picked up by young people, the law is being broken. The Minister of Justice could walk into any police court in Canada on any day of the week, and he would find 25 or 30 people charged with offences such as those encouraged in these periodicals. In addition to recommending to the provincial attorneys general that these periodicals be investigated, will the minister recommend that charges be laid against the distributors, if he cannot get hold of the creators of this type of crime?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know which magazines the hon. member has in his possession. If he will give them to me, I will be happy to consider them. I know that some magazines which seem to promote the use of pot have been the subject of investigation by the attorneys general. Whether these three magazines fall within that category, I do not know. If the hon. member will give them to me, I will be happy to refer them to the attorneys general.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Peter Stollery (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. Its recent application before the CRTC for a 20 per cent increase suggests that the Bell Canada monopoly of the Canadian telecommunications and telephone system is stifling fair competition and driving up prices. Will the government consider limiting these monopolistic prices, and will it act to declare telephone and transmission lines as public utilities and mediums serviced and operated by a private operation?

March 1, 1978
Oral Questions


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, these are considered public utilities. This is the reason they operate under the very severe regulations of the CRTC. The application presently before the CRTC will, I believe, be heard in the course of the next month. As I understand it, there will be five weeks of public hearings on the merits of the application. I have full confidence that the CRTC is fully equipped to deal with such a request.


NEGOTIATION OF INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT TO BENEFIT PRODUCERS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It has nothing to do with freight rates, railroads or those other matters which ordinarily come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport and which, apparently, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has now taken over as his own-at any rate as far as the prairie provinces are concerned. Of the utmost importance and concern to those provinces is the International Wheat Agreement.
In view of the comparatively low prices for products such as wheat, the tremendous interest rate and the fantastic price which has to be paid for implements, agriculture is in a serious position. Is it a fact, as stated in certain specialized sections of the American press, that practically every impediment-if not every impediment-or roadblock in the way of the International Wheat Agreement has been swept aside by reason of the United States agreeing generally to the need for one, and also to the price? Would the minister say whether he is optimistic that on the basis of the present situation the farm population and, indeed, the nation as a whole, may look forward to an early completion of the discussions in Geneva and to an International Wheat Agreement which will bring some hope to our farmers?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the right hon. gentleman for that question. As he knows, I am deeply concerned about the price of grain.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: My department is watching closely the talks which are going on at this moment in Geneva. An attempt is being made there to set up what might be called a reserve or buffer stock which could be drawn upon when the trigger price is activated. What that price will be, and the amount going into the reserve stock, are matters still under negotiation. The United States appears to be working very hard on this occasion to set up a new agreement. We are certainly co-operating with them, but we intend to watch carefully both the price and the amount going into this buffer stock, as well as the amount of

stock withdrawn from it, since these questions are of vital importance to western Canada.


FISHERIES
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: 
Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the minister can stand with a clear conscience and try once again to pass the buck on an issue which has been with us for eight years, especially since the health and safety of a great many people is involved. The hon. gentleman's officials admitted in committee that the federal government has power to close the river to sports fishing, unilaterally. If that action had been taken, I believe we would have been able to devise a policing mechanism. In my opinion, the minister has done nothing more than set up another straw man. Let him close the river-which he
March 1, 1978

has power to do-as has been requested by the native people for eight years, and then we shall see if we can get the closure policed effectively by the federal government.


Mr. LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent):: I recognize at once that the Fisheries Act takes precedence over provincial regulations.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Then do it.


Roméo LeBlanc: If the hon. member wants the federal government to aassume jurisdiction over inland waters, that is the way to proceed. But it would be a total fraud to pretend to close a fishery if we cannot enforce the closure. Some of the hon. member's friends sit in the Ontario legislature. I suggest they might be the ones to approach on this matter, because that is where the responsibility lies.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Solicitor General, who I am sure is aware that the Ontario legislature has been informed that confidential medical files of a psychiatric nature were obtained in at least two cases, and that these files were secured at the direction of two federal departments. Would the minister tell us which departments these were, and under whose authorization, in each case, the action was taken?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: I am aware of the statement which was made in the legislature. That statement was based upon information which was received from the RCMP pursuant to a letter issued by the Acting Commanding Officer of the RCMP of the Ontario region. I may tell the hon. member that no directions were given on the part of any department of government to obtain the information in the way in which it was obtained.


William Herbert Jarvis: Then am I to assume that the particular officer was lying or misleading the attorney general of Ontario; or, in the alternative, if it was not by reason of a direct command by a federal department, was the securing of those two psychiatric files carried out with the knowledge of two federal departments? If that is the case, I again ask: Which federal departments?


Mr. Blais:: The information was obtained as a result of the activities conducted by the RCMP security service in obtaining security clearance of federal civil servants. In obtaining such clearance, information is sought on matters relating to mental stability. That, indeed, was the direction which was given to the RCMP when obtaining clearance; the aspect of mental stability would be taken into consideration.
Oral Questions


William Herbert Jarvis: Would the Solicitor General tell us whether at least one or, likely, two federal departments knew that confidential psychiatric information was being obtained so that they might benefit in terms of assessing the potential of staff for promotion? Who knew about it, which department, and under whose authorization was this? Surely the Solicitor General cannot avoid answering that question if he has any integrity at all.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I am not attempting to avoid the question. The question is quite clear and the reply is quite clear. There was no specific direction from any government department.


William Herbert Jarvis: Did they know about it?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, at this time I have no indication that there was any knowledge in the department that information was obtained from OHIP files. I am simply addressing myself to the question that was initially asked relating to the statement in the legislature, that is, the statement which referred to express directions from two federal departments. I say there was no direction from any federal department.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I believe this question should be directed to the President of the Treasury Board, who is responsible for government finances. It concerns a practice being followed by the Department of Public Works. When the Department of Public Works puts out a call for tenders for the construction of federal buildings in certain areas of Canada, there is attached to that call a stipulation in respect of the minimum hourly wage that must be paid by persons replying to the call for tender. In cases that I am aware of, the minimum wage stipulated is much above what is being paid in the area. I believe the information is supposed to come from the Department of Labour.
I ask the minister if he would have the department discontinue this practice, or make sure that the information obtained from the Department of Labour is much more accurate, so it does not disrupt wage patterns in certain areas and, more importantly, does not provide the fiscal irresponsibility that a program such as this smells of.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member can give me specific instances, I will certainly look into them. I am not aware of the situation he describes.

March 1, 1978
Oral Questions


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. As the premiers gathered in Montreal last week have recognized the principle of free access for everyone to French and English education according to their mother tongue, when the number of children justifies it, which the Minister of State responsible for federal-provincial relations described as significant progress, and as the provinces have reasserted at the same time the exclusive jurisdiction of provincial governments in the field of education, would the Prime Minister tell us if, in the circumstances, he still intends to propose a constitutional amendment concerning linguistic rights in the education field?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: 1 agree with the Minister of State responsible for federal-provincial relations that some progress has been made at the premiers' meeting last week. But I would point out that this progress simply corresponds to what the federal government obtained at the 1968 and 1969 conferences where indeed we discussed those problems with the provinces and received from them the acknowledgement of the right of French-and English-speaking minorities to be educated in their own language where it is justified. I am encouraged by the fact that the provinces are still proceeding in the right direction. I only regret that we have not yet succeeded in confirming this progress in a constitutional document. It is good to recognize, as we did in 1968 and 1969, the right of minorities to be educated in their language, but this would be a reality had we proceeded as suggested then and now by the federal government. This progress would be included in the constitution and courts would ensure its becoming a reality. This is why our suggestion is still valid and I hope that the premiers and hon. members will understand that such a constitutional amendment would not remove this matter from provincial jurisdiction.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
I would say to the Prime Minister that I understand quite well and that is perhaps why I ask the question. The Prime Minister has just said that he still intends to introduce this amendment. Given the circumstances, would he assure the House that such a constitutional amendment on educational linguistic rights will not be presented without securing prior agreement from the provinces?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this House must recognize the protection of minorities as one of its roles. In any case, that is the position of the government under my leadership. Already in 1968-and I have documents to prove it-we had secured agreement in principle. And during the last ten years, we have been asking the provinces to come together on that point so that this agreement in principle, which is very important for Francophone minorities in provinces other than

Quebec-and now for the Anglophone minority of the province of Quebec-we have been asking, as I said, that is this agreement in principle go one step further. Of course, we will keep on asking the provinces to come to an agreement on that matter but I do not think the hon. member would prevent us from making such a proposal to those governments.


THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Mr. Gilles Marceau (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
Notwithstanding the attitude of the Quebec government which seems to have lost interest in the evolution of the constitutional debate, could the Prime Minister tell hon. members whether the government is prepared to take concrete action to make it clear that we are not for the status quo and that we are ready to consider the constitutional changes requested by Canadians and more particularly by Quebecers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 think this supplementary question is very pertinent to the previous one. As I have been saying again and again since 1968 and 1969 and at the Victoria conference, then again in my letters to the premiers in 1975 and 1976, and again in my other letters to them last September and October, we have been constantly proposing constitutional changes, particularly changes designed to protect public liberties and of course linguistic rights. Therefore I do not think any sincere person can describe this situation as a status quo. We did make a series of proposals. To answer the question of the hon. member, I would say yes, we have announced them in the Speech from the Throne and we intend to bring before the House before the end of this session other proposals related to constitutional changes, because indeed it seems clear that we cannot expect them from the government of Quebec which has only vague formulas and does not give any clear definition of its sovereignty-association option.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Environment). Could he tell the House exactly what is going on with respect
March 1, 1978

to the study of the proposed new runway for the Vancouver airport, bearing in mind that he had no difficulty whatsoever in interfering with all the usual procedures when cancelling the Kitimat proposal? Will he assure the House that he will now step in, in like manner, and cancel this new runway, which has already been studied to death and in respect of which all the evidence is that it is not necessary and is not needed?


Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Environment)):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, an environmental assessment panel has been appointed to work on this matter and is reviewing the situation. It will be presenting a final report to me some time this fall. By that time I will be in a position to make a recommendation to my colleague, the Minister of Transport, on what should be done.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, would the Secretary of State tell the House the facts that he or other members of the cabinet suddenly acquired last week, which made it possible to cancel the Kitimat proposal, which were not available to him months ago before millions of dollars in taxpayers' money had been spent on a study which was interrupted by the government?


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, certainly the government had a number of facts on hand relating-


An hon. Member:: Which facts?


Len Marchand: -to the whole question of petroleum and energy supplies for Canada. My colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, has been doing a great job in addressing this question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Can we have the facts?


Len Marchand: I will send the hon. member a copy of the information, if he would like that. We waited until we received the interim report from Dr. Thompson. That helped a great deal in making up our minds finally in relation to the west coast oil ports.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Last week Uganda announced that it would accept the invitation to attend the Commonwealth Games in Edmonton and would be sending a contingent of 75 people, whom we welcome. On May 26, 1977, in answer to a question I posed in the House, the minister said he would investigate my suggestion that President Idi Amin be banned from entering Canada during the Commonwealth Games.
Oral Questions
In light of the latest Amnesty International Report for 1977, which specifies that President Amin is responsible for numerous killings during a reign of terror in that country, will the minister now make it perfectly clear that President Amin will be banned from entering Canada during the Commonwealth Games?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there is another talent President Amin has, which the hon. member should be aware of, and that is maximizing the proposing of hypothetical questions as to whether he is going to visit some place or whether he is not. I can see we are now off on a whole new round of speculation: Is he going to come, or is he not? In those circumstances I do not think I ought to comment, other than what I said last May, on what President Amin may do or what attitude we would take toward him. I have said repeatedly that it serves no useful purpose. If President Amin announces categorically that he is going to come, we will deal with it at that time. I do not see any point in changing the observations I made last May.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce: it concerns the town of Stewart, British Columbia. I realize the hon. Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport has that community in her riding. That community will be experiencing the shutdown of the Granduc mine on June 30, 1978. That will almost eliminate it as a viable community in the area. What proposals has the government made with regard to bringing back that community and giving the residents some assurance that there will be work, there will be employment, and there will not be just bankruptcy and unemployment following June 30?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, my department is watching the copper situation very closely. The United States is announcing today, or announced yesterday, an inquiry on copper coming into that country. That will affect the copper producing countries which are in competition with Canada and came on the market excessively in the last six months, such as Zaire, Chile, and so on. Because of our long-term sales to the United States, we are negotiating with them so that we will be able to continue exporting to that country, which has been our pattern. With that in mind, the hon. Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport has kept me informed of the situation in respect of the town of Stewart.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Because of the hon. Minister's ability to lobby to me, I am sure my department will do the best it can to assist
3346

March 1, 1978
Point of Order
the employment situation in Granduc and will help the industry to diversify as much as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: I have two notices of privilege, but I have also notice from the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) of a point of order, which might usefully be taken first. Also I have notice that three ministers will be tabling documents that perhaps the House will be interested in. I wonder if I might be permitted to call those matters in that order.


POINTS OF ORDER
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have learned from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) that he has the information with regard to the employment tax credit program which was passed in the House. Previously he undertook that it would be starting by March 1. If he has information in order to answer the questions of the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), we would appreciate hearing from him now.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the House. I have checked with the Department of Employment and Immigration. The program will start next week on March 8.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MR. ROBERTS-CORRECTION OF OFFICIAL REPORT
Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I have two separate corrections or clarifications to make to Hansard for February 28. The first one relates to the adjournment debate as reported at page 3330 when I was replying to the question of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). The English Hansard reads as follows:
Just before Christmas, we stressed the importance given at the federal level to the idea that the provinces will agree to exceptions to these very important rights.
It should read, "to accepting these very important rights". Since it is a complete transformation of the sense, I should like that correction to be made.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Hansard reported accurately what the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) said yesterday.


John (Moody) Roberts: But I was speaking in French.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I heard the translation.


John (Moody) Roberts: The French version of Hansard reads as follows:

... que les provinces accepteront les exceptions a ces droits tres importants.


My only explanation would be that perhaps I was groping for words in French and repeated twice the word "accepteront", which was reported as "exceptions".


MR. ROBERTS-CLARIFICATION OF CHANGES IN ESTIMATES
John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, the second matter refers to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) yesterday. Earlier the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) argued that there had been a decrease in funding on the part of the government for arts and culture within the Department of the Secretary of State. Since that was not the case, and since I understood how he arrived at that conclusion, I was seeking to explain the true situation to him.
In my remarks I used the word "error", which I think was wrongly used. Shortly after the blue book went to press, there was a change agreed to by Treasury Board which had the effect of making an increase, in the grants portion to be undertaken under the Festival Canada program, to $1,450,000. In effect, it was not an error at the time the Blue Book went to press. The blue book did not accurately indicate decisions which were subsequently taken. It would be the intention of the government to make the modification on supplementary estimates. I wanted to be sure the hon. member for Egmont did not misunderstand the government's intention. The use of the word "error" was probably an inaccurate description of what in fact took place.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I want to respond for a moment to the comments made by the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts). He leaves the standing committee in a bit of difficulty when it meets, if some of the material being furnished to it by way of reference today will not be complete, in the sense of analysing this with previous expenditures, until we have supplementary estimates, which are many months away. Prior to any consideration by committee, I hope the minister will be able to make available to all hon. members a full explanation so that proper and due consideration can be given to items in the estimates.
Also while I am on my feet, originally I meant to raise a question of privilege concerning the comments of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie). I realize he did not want to cast any aspersions on the motivation or interest of any hon. member, but he referred to the fact that I had been seized suddenly with this problem of agents' fees. Possibly the minister neglected to check the record and refer to the many occasions on which I, as well as many other hon. members, had raised this issue over some months.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If I permit the hon. member the floor on a question of privilege on those grounds, presumably I will have to let several ministers have the floor every time an hon. member, in putting a question, says something which might cast any aspersions on ministers. Perhaps that is a
March 1, 1978

subject of disagreement or a subject of argument, but it does not reach in any way the proportions of a question of privilege.


MR. ANDRE-ASSURANCE OF ACCURATE ESTIMATES
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is related to the remarks of the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts). When clarifying his comments yesterday, he indicated, as a result of approvals or certain procedures within the Treasury Board not having been completed before the blue book went to press, that in fact the blue book of main estimates will not accurately assess the appropriations for that particular department. That explanation does not cover the point of order raised by the hon. member for Grenville-Carle-ton (Mr. Baker) yesterday, when he expressed concern about the fact that shortly the Blue Book estimates will be referred to appropriate committees. We have been told that the appropriations or estimates of at least one department are inaccurate.
My point of order is: what assurance can the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) give us that we in fact will be looking at the legitimate estimates of planned expenditures in the government, and not something which may or may not be wrong or inappropriate for one or more departments?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the very simple answer is to recognize that at the time of the printing and tabling of the main estimates, the basic expenditure plan of the government was contained therein; but we know there is provision in our procedure for subsequent adjustments to programs, additions, deletions, changes and transfers between votes, a whole series of adjustments necessary for an institution the size of the government. Consequently, the provision for supplementary estimates is there. Of course, there will be some adjustments further down the road.
The figures referred to by the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) reflected the decision of the government on a policy basis, at the time the main estimates were sent to print, in advance of tabling, for the obvious reason that a strictly mechanical or administrative time frame is required. So there will be a subsequent adjustment to many programs, and 1 think that is what the Secretary of State implied.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, yesterday when this matter was raised, the hon. gentleman said he would look into it. We have now discovered there is quite a substantial change with respect to one aspect. 1 was satisfied with that answer yesterday, and 1 took it that before the reference was made to the standing committees some attempt would be made to clear up in advance the total amount of the estimates with which those standing committees will have to deal.
The following questions are legitimate questions to the minister following upon his undertaking: Has that study been made? To what extent are the estimates, with which we will be dealing today and which we will be sending to the committees,
Point of Order
changed? Is the President of Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) in a position to table the document today-to which we would be delighted to consent-and make a statement-which we would like to hear-in order to indicate, after the experience he has just described and before the matter finally goes to committee and leaves the House, what the true state of the estimates might be. I think it is rather important that, in considering the estimates in the committee, we start off from the correct base, not from something that is fluid in terms of the reference from the House to the committee. There is enough criticism of the whole procedure in dealing with the estimates without starting off from a base which is not reliable, and I think the President of Treasury Board would agree with that. Is he prepared to clarify this situation today?


Robert Knight Andras: There are no known errors in the main estimates as printed and tabled on February 22. Obviously, as I have indicated and as every member of the House knows, between the time of dealing with the main estimates as they were laid before the House of Commons on February 22 and the end of the fiscal year 1978-79, which concludes on March 31, 1979, about 13 months from now, there will be some supplementary estimates. That is the only issue involved here. The blue book is as accurate as human competence can guarantee it and I know of no errors or omissions in it as tabled the other day.


Walter David Baker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, that is the assurance I wanted.


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad this point of order was brought out because I wondered if the Department of National Defence was alone in having these inaccurate estimates before the House. I have a written answer from the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) which was provided several months ago telling me that the additional cost for long range patrol aircraft would come to some $71 million. The estimates reflect not a dime of that $71 million, and yet he knew about it several months ago. The Krauss-Maffei contract for tanks is another such matter. Our dollar has been devalued in relationship to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Two occasions have presented themselves, one in particular when the President of Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) tabled the estimates on which there was a round of questioning with regard to general matters. In addition, detailed questioning about the estimates of each individual department will take place when the estimates are before the committees. The only reason for accepting the point of order at this time is that it was known today that the minister would move the motion of reference to the standing committees.
Yesterday the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) said there was an error in one portion of those estimates, and I felt that before the motions were put today that error should be cleared up. To the extent it can be done, the error has been cleared up; but I would not want any hon. member to presume that this would allow points of order to be raised to question the minister today on the details of every department. That will be
80031-70%

March 1, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Rodriguez
done when the estimates of each department are before the committees.
Before questions of privilege are raised by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) and the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), there are three ministers who wish to table documents. 1 wonder if the House might consent to allowing them to do so now.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), I should like to table, in both official languages, a copy of an order in council requiring that writs of election be issued for eight electoral districts and that the vote be held on Monday, October 16, 1978.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: That's just before your birthday.


SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (B) 1977-78
[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting Supplementary Estimates (B) of sums required for the service of Canada for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1978, was presented by Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board), and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.

John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a report by the Textile and Clothing Board respecting an inquiry on handbags.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on what I consider to be a very serious matter of privilege. A

week ago in this House it was brought to our attention that two of the members of this House had been the objects of electronic surveillance. Subsequent to that disclosure the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) confirmed in the House that the person responsible for this surveillance had been in the employ of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The person responsible for the surveillance also admitted on national television that he had conducted a bugging operation against me at one point in my riding.
This would clearly indicate to me a breach of privilege if for no other reason than the fact that this calls into question the privacy of communication between a member of parliament and his constituents, and as such clearly inhibits the ability of a member of parliament to perform his duties.
I would also like to refer your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the statement of Mr. Speaker on October 17, 1973, when he said in this House that an incident of electronic surveillance against the caucus of the New Democratic Party was, and I quote: "A prima facie case of breach of privilege".
1 might add that even more weight must be given to this question of privilege because since that time we have had the assurance of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that no member of parliament had been the subject of electronic surveillance by our federal police force since the case of Fred Rose.
Mr. Speaker, it is your role to protect the rights and privileges of members of parliament, and it is to you I turn for redress on this matter. I must ask you in that role to obtain any tapes or other objects resulting from electronic surveillance against myself from whatever level or organization under the Solicitor General which is presently holding that material. I must also ask you in your role as Mr. Speaker to discover why that electronic surveillance operation was undertaken, why I was never informed that the operation had taken place, and why the tapes have not been turned over to me.
Since it has now been seven days since this information became public and I have received neither an apology nor an explanation, I must now, Mr. Speaker, ask you to step into this affair. Notwithstanding the action which I have asked Your Honour to take in this matter, I reserve my right to move a motion of privilege at some future time.


Mr. Rod Blaker (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) I wonder if Your Honour and the hon. member, who has already indicated he is asking that his motion be reserved in any event, might agree to give the Solicitor General the opportunity to address himself to this question in the next day or two or, at least, the next time he is in the House of Commons.
March 1, 1978


Mr. Speaker:: I have no hesitation in agreeing to allow some time for the response of the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) to the question put forward today. In any case, I would need some time to assess it in terms of my own responsibilities with regard to the request made. Therefore I am quite happy to see the matter reserved for a day or two until I have had some indication whether the information asked for by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) today is forthcoming.
In the interim I see no difficulty at all in reserving to the hon. member the right to carry on the question of privilege of which he gave the Chair notice a week ago, which is the reason I took it as a priority item today in terms of notices of questions of privilege which have been filed with me.


MR. BROADBENT-ALLEGED MISSTATEMENTS OF FACT BY MINISTER OF FINANCE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise, as I indicated to you in a letter this morning, on a separate question of privilege. In a speech delivered in Montreal on Monday night the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) devoted his time to making some assertions about the nature of the Canadian economy. Arising from those assertions it seems to me that there is a very serious question of privilege, at least on a prima facie basis, which concerns all members of this House.
I would like to quote three portions of the minister's speech. First, he said that Canada's economic recovery is gaining momentum. Second, at page three of the text of his speech the minister said that "unlike the situation 12 months ago, we are going into the new year from a strong base of real growth". Third, the minister said that the outlook for investment is improving.
I am very concerned about these statements because they were not rhetorical in nature. They were not the kind of statement that politicians of whatever party make from time to time in exaggerated claims about the nature of their virtues or about the nature of the vices of their opponents. They were statements of purported fact, and they were made just two nights ago by the Minister of Finance, the man who holds the most responsible financial position in Canada.
The concern I have about those allegations of fact is that they are not only slightly contradicted in emphasis by other evidence, but they are flatly contradicted by reports which have been produced by another government agency, Statistics Canada. One report appeared on Friday of last week, and another just appeared yesterday. I will not go into both those reports at length. I could do so, and in chapter after chapter and verse after verse they would flatly contradict the alleged factual assertions made by the minister. I will refer to just two such factual contradictions. Yesterday's Statistics Canada report showed that business investment in the last quarter of 1977 declined at an annual rate of 10.8-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Regardless of the merits of the statistics in the argument the hon. member is about to put forward,
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent
surely he will agree that in principle what he is doing is entering into argumentation with regard to the statements made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien). If I were to extend to the hon. member the right to raise this disagreement by way of a question of privilege, I would have to extend to every hon. member every day, under the guise of privilege, the opportunity to take issue, no matter how serious and fundamental, with statements made by ministers or by other members of the House both inside and outside the House. No matter how fundamental that disagreement may be and no matter how well documented or how persuasive the argument may turn out to be, it still remains argument; and I cannot recognize argument as privilege, for to do so would invite the same thing from every member every day.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I fully respect what you have said, but I wonder if you will permit me perhaps another 60 seconds to try to make a case of privilege because I do not think this is just a matter of argument.
As Your Honour knows, this House has a rule that no minister or member ought deliberately to misinform other members in the House, and if there is any breach of that rule, a bona fide question of privilege can be raised.
The concern I have is that yesterday in the question period the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) indicated that the government was aware of the information contained in the Statistics Canada report, but during the same period of awareness the Minister of Finance was uttering something which was not just a matter of emphasis but a factual contention which was a flat contradiction of what Statistics Canada was saying was going on in the economy.
If Your Honour rules in my favour, my prima facie question of privilege would be that we as members of this House cannot continue to do our jobs properly if we are provided systematically with contradictory information from the Minister of Finance and from other government agencies. This is an extremely serious issue, particularly at this time when the problems in the Canadian economy are very real indeed. Perhaps above all else at this time, if we are going to come to grips with the very serious problems facing us, we need honesty.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is exaggerating somewhat. Statistics Canada published its figures on Tuesday. I did not see them before they were published, so the hon. member cannot accuse me of having seen them. He cannot accuse department heads because the speech I made in Montreal was about policy which I, in concert with my bureaucrats, had developed. There was absolutely nothing misleading in that.
I said that for the fourth quarter of the year I expected to see 4 per cent to 5 per cent real growth. I have said that many times. However, I did not at that time have the facts which were published by Statistics Canada. I had some indication that the figure was to be between 4 per cent and 5 per cent. Unfortunately the figure turned out to be 3.2 per cent, which made the average 4.3 per cent for the last half of the year.

March 1, 1978
Privilege-Mr. Stevens
In the present economic circumstances one could claim that 4.3 per cent is weak. I can disagree with the hon. member and say that it is rather strong. Only Japan and the United States outperformed Canada in that part of the year.
We can argue, but I want to assure the hon. member that when I made that speech, I based it on the facts which were available to me and my ministry at that time. When I was the minister responsible for Statistics Canada, statistics would come to me as minister of industry, trade and commerce the night before they were published. At no time did I make those statistics available to other ministers, even at times relative to inflation and unemployment. I kept them to myself, and they were not distributed to other departments. Statistics Canada is completely independent from the government. It publishes its own statistics. We can argue whether growth of 4.3 per cent for the last half of last year is strong enough, but I think it is a good base. I do not think there is any basis for arguing that I deliberately misled the House or the public. I think there is no question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: We are clearly, in the most classic terms, in the field of argumentation or dispute as to facts. The matter is not in any way related to privilege and therefore cannot go any further.


MR. STEVENS-ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATION BY MINISTER OF FINANCE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My question of privilege arises from the remarks made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) in defence of what I felt was a proper representation on the part of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broad-bent). The minister has misled the House again. The Montreal speech to which reference was made did not refer to the last half of 1977.1 refer specifically to the following wording:
Economic growth in both the third and fourth quarters of 1977 was at or above the long-term potential rate for the economy.


Mr. Douglas (Bruce-Grey):: That is the last half of 1977.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The important thing is that the minister referred specifically to the third and fourth quarters. The third quarter did show the growth to which the minister is referring. That is the 5.2 per cent growth which is above the 5 per cent real growth target which is looked upon as our potential. The fourth quarter figures are very clear. They show .8 per cent, which is 3.2 per cent on an annualized basis. This is below the potential.
The fact is that the minister misled both his audience in Montreal and members of the House by saying he was referring to the second half. He was not referring to the second half. He created the impression that the third quarter was above its potential level and that the fourth quarter was above its potential level as far as real growth is concerned. From an economic standpoint there is a very important distinction

between what he said today and what he said in Montreal. If the fourth quarter is-


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) is right back where we were before, which is a direct confrontation on an interpretation to be placed on remarks of the minister made outside the House.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: No, here.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. On a procedural basis the extent to which this dispute exists is not any concern of the Chair. It remains a dispute and not in any way a procedural problem.


NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
[Stage Direction]
First report of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on the National Capital Region-Mr. Francis.

Mr. Frank Maine (Wellington) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-422, to amend the Statistics Act (release of pre-1900 census returns).
He said: Mr. Speaker, in response to the concerns of Mrs. Jacqueline Norris, past chairman of the Wellington-Waterloo branch of the Ontario Genealogical Society and other members of similar Canadian genealogical organizations, I wish to introduce a bill entitled an act to amend the Statistics Act, calling for the release of individual returns to a census taken prior to January 1, 1900.
While section 16 of the Canada Statistics Act is addressed to secrecy and prohibits the divulging of census return information, no section of the act is addressed to a mechanism for the eventual release of this census data. There appears to be no overriding reason to prevent public access to this pre-1900 census information.


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

Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-27, to amend the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
March 1, 1978

Hon. Norman A. Cafik (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 59, I move that the estimates of sums required for the service of Canada for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1979 be referred to the several standing committees of the House as follows. Mr. Speaker, I have a considerable list of committees. Perhaps with the unanimous consent of the House I could dispense with the reading of the details.


Mr. Speaker:: With the assurance from the minister that the list is in the usual form of reference of the estimates to the appropriate standing committees, and subject to any points of order that might subsequently be raised upon examination of the list, I take it the minister has leave to have the motion considered to have been spoken by him as contained in the printed document and as will be printed in Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I move:
That the Estimates of sums required for the service of Canada for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1979, be referred to the several Standing Committees of the House, as follows:
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture Agriculture Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, L25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60 and 65 To the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts Communications Votes 1,5, 10 and 15
Secretary of State Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, L25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, L90, 95, 100, 105, 110 and LI 15.
To the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence External Affairs Votes 1, 5, 10, L15, 20, 25, 30, L35, 40 and 45 National Defence Votes 1, 5, 10 and 15 To the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs Finance Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 and 35
Industry, Trade and Commerce Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, L20, L25, L30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60 and 65
National Revenue Votes 1, 5 and 10 Privy Council Vote 20
To the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry Environment Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 To the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs Consumer and Corporate Affairs Votes 1 and 5
National Health and Welfare Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60 and 65
Urban Affairs Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, L25, L30, 35, 40 and L45 To the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development Indian Affairs and Northern Development Votes 1, 5, 10, LI5, L20, 25, 30, 35, L40, L45, L50, L55, 60, 65, 70 and L75 To the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs Justice Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 Solicitor General Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 To the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration Employment and Immigration Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 Labour Votes 1, 5 and 10
To the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services Parliament Votes 5 and 10
Estimates
To the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates Finance Vote 25
Governor General and Lieutenant Governors Vote 1
Parliament Vote 1
Privy Council Votes 1,5, 15 and 25
Science and Technology Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 Secretary of State Vote 120 Supply and Services Votes 1, 5, L10, 15, 20 and 25 Treasury Board Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 To the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works
Energy, Mines and Resources Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, L25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, L60, L65, L70, L75 and 80
Public Works Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40 and 45 To the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections Privy Council Vote 10
To the Standing Committee on Regional Development
Regional Economic Expansion Votes 1, 5, 10, LI5, L20, 25, 30 and 35 To the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications Post Office Votes 1 and 5
Transport Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, L35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, L75, 80, 85, 90, 95, 100, L105, 110 and 115 To the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs Veterans Affairs Votes 1,5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 and 35


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 59 I move that the Supplementary Estimates (B) 1977-78 tabled this day be referred to the several standing committees of the House as follows. Again, this list has been distributed to House leaders and 1 presume there would be agreement to dispense with reading the list of committees and references.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the same procedure apply?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I move:
That the Supplementary Estimates (B), 1977-78, tabled this day, be referred to the several Standing Committees of the House, as follows:
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture:
Agriculture Votes lb, 5b, 20b, L21b, 40b, 50b and 60b To the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts: Communications Vote lb
Secretary of State Votes lb, 15b, 20b, 40b and L62b To the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence:
External Affairs Votes lb, 10b, LI8b, LI9b, 30b, 31b and 45b National Defence Votes lb and 10b To the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs:

March 1, 1978
Order Paper Questions
Finance Votes 15b and 21b
Industry, Trade and Commerce Votes lb, L36b, L37b, 40b and 51b National Revenue Votes lb and 5b To the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry:
Environment Votes lb, 5b, 10b, 15b, 20b and 30b To the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs:
Consumer and Corporate Affairs Votes 5b and 25b National Health and Welfare Votes 10b, 25b and 30b To the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development:
Indian Affairs and Northern Development Votes 5b, 25b, 30b, 35b and L50b To the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs:
Justice Vote 32b
Solicitor General Votes 5b and L30b To the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration:
Labour Vote lb
Manpower and Immigration Vote 5b To the Standing Committee on Management and Members Services:
Parliament Vote 5b
To the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates:
Privy Council Votes lb and 5b Science and Technology Votes 5b and 10b Secretary of State Vote 105b Supply and Services Votes 5b and LI lb Treasury Board Votes lb, 20b and L35b To the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works:
Energy, Mines and Resources Votes 5b, 6b, 7b, L25b, 35b and L72b Public Works Votes 10b, 15b, 20b and 40b To the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections:
Privy Council Vote 10b
To the Standing Committee on Regional Development:
Regional Economic Expansion Votes lb and 5b To the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications:
Transport Votes 5b, 10b, 15b, 20b, 30b, 40b, 90b, 99b and 100b


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[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: 335, 512, 923, 946, 950, 1,041 to 1,071 inclusive, 1,095, 1,097 to 1,101 inclusive, 1,105, 1,106, 1,119, 1,124, 1,128, 1,145 and 1,273.

[ Text]


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


Mr. Roger Young (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: 1. (a) (v) 17 part-time employees in 1974/75. 12 part-time employees in 1975/76. (b) Nil.
2.	Part-time employees from agencies are paid from the Main estimates.
3. (a) 1974/75-$5.29 per hour. 1975/76-$6.26 per hour, (b) Information not available since the rates paid to employees are figured by the agencies, (c) (i) Total amount for 1974/ 75-$15,663.53; (ii) Total amount for 1975/76-$21,037.23.


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 512
Mr. Howie:: For the fiscal year ended March 31, 1977, how many claims for unemployment insurance benefits made at Fredericton, New Brunswick were (a) accepted (b) rejected?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: (a) 10,599; (b) 1,717.


Mr. Herbert: 
Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1977, were studies made regarding the possible establishment of an unemployment insurance office in New Brunswick at Oromocto, Minto or an additional location in Fredericton?
Hon. Bud Cullen, (Minister of Employment and Immigration): Yes, as part of a review of the locations of all manpower and unemployment insurance offices in New Brunswick.


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1977, were studies made regarding the possible establishment of an employment office in New Brunswick at Oromocto, Minto or an additional location in Fredericton?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Yes, as part of a review of the locations of all manpower and unemployment insurance offices in New Brunswick.


Mr. Andre: How many corporations are wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is responsible and what are their names?


Robert Knight Andras: Corporations wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is responsible: Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce-20 Agency Crown Corporations-Schedule "C"-F.A. Act (1): Canadian Patents and Development Limited. Proprietary Crown Corporations-Schedule "D"-F.A. Act (2): Export Development Corporation; Federal Business Development Bank. Other Government Corporations (3): Canadair Limited; The de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited; Standards Council of Canada. Mixed Enterprise Corporations (6): Canada Book Design Committee Inc., Canadian Colour and Fashion Trend Service; Consolidated Computer Inc.; Fashion Canada; Footwear and Leather Institute of Canada; POS Pilot Plant Corporation. Subsidiary Corporations and Their Subsidiaries (8): Canadair Flextrac Limited; Canadair GMBL; Canadair Incorporated; Canadair International Ltd.; Canadair Services Limited; Canadian General Atomic Corporation Limited; Canarch Limited; de Havilland Canada Inc.


Mr. Andre: How many corporations are wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Department of National Revenue is responsible and what are their names?


Robert Knight Andras: Corporations wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Department of National Revenue is responsible: Department of National Revenue-1. Other
Order Paper Questions
Government Corporations (1): Radio Engineering Products Limited.


Mr. Andre: How many corporations are wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Receiver General of Canada is responsible and what are their names?


Robert Knight Andras: Corporations wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Receiver General of Canada is responsible: Receiver General of Canada-none.


Mr. Andre: How many corporations are wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Department of Supply and Services is responsible and what are their names?


Robert Knight Andras: Corporations wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Department of Supply and Services is responsible: Department of Supply and Services- 5. Agency Crown Corporations-Schedule "C"-F.A. Act (4); Canadian Arsenals Limited; Canadian Commercial Corporation; Crown Assets Disposal Corporation; Royal Canadian Mint. Other Entities and Associates (1): The Custodian (of Enemy Property).


Mr. Andre: How many corporations are wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources is responsible and what are their names?


Robert Knight Andras: Corporations wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources is responsible: Department of Energy, Mines and Resources-9. Departmental Crown Corporations-Schedule "B"-F.A. Act (1): Atomic Energy Control Board. Agency Crown Corporations-Schedule "C" F.A. Act (2): Atomic Energy of Canada Limited; Uranium Canada Limited. Proprietary Crown Corporations-Schedule "D"-F.A. Act (3): Eldorado Aviation Limited; Eldorado Nuclear Limited; Petro-Canada. Subsidiary Corporations and their Subsidiaries (1): Petro-Canada Explorations Inc. Associated Corporations (2): Panarctic Oils Ltd.; Syncrude Canada Ltd.


Mr. Andre: How many corporations are wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Department of the Solicitor General is responsible and what are their names?


Robert Knight Andras: Corporations wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Department of the Solicitor General is responsible: Department of the Solicitor General- 1. Other Government Corporations (1): Dungarvon Forestry Project Inc.
3354

March 1, 1978
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Andre: How many corporations are wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is responsible and what are their names?


Robert Knight Andras: Corporations wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is responsible: Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development-9. Agency Crown Corporations-Schedule "C"-F.A. Act (2): The National Battlefields Commission; Northern Canada Power Commission. Mixed Enterprise Corporations (6): Abenaki Motel Ltd.; Canadian Arctic Producers Ltd.; Crane Cove Oyster Farm Ltd.; Mohawk St. Regis Lacrosse Ltd.; Nanisivik Mines Limited; Shong Way Shi Corporation Limited. Subsidiary Corporations and their Subsidiaries (1): Imanco Marketing Limited.


Mr. Andre: How many corporations are wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Department of National Defence is responsible and what are their names?


Robert Knight Andras: Corporations wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Department of National Defence is responsible: Department of National Defence-1. Agency Crown Corporation-Schedule "C"-F.A. Act (1): Defence Construction (1951) Limited.


Mr. Andre: How many corporations are wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Department of Agriculture is responsible and what are their names?


Robert Knight Andras: Corporations wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Department of Agriculture is responsible: Department of Agriculture-8. Departmental Crown Corporations-Schedule "B"-F.A. Act (1): Agricultural Stabilization Board. Agency Crown Corporations- Schedule "C"-F.A. Act (2): Canadian Dairy Commission; Canadian Livestock Feed Board. Proprietary Crown Corporations-Schedule "D"-F.A. Act (1): Farm Credit Corporation. Other Entities and Associates (4): Agricultural Products Board; The Canadian Egg Marketing Agency; The Canadian Turkey Marketing Agency; National Farm Products Marketing Council.


Mr. Andre: How many corporations are wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Department of Communications is responsible and what are their names?


Robert Knight Andras: Corporations wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Department of Communications is responsible: Department of Communications-3. Proprietary Crown Corporations-Schedule "D"-F.A. Act (1): Teleglobe Canada. Mixed Enterprise Corporations (1): Telesat Canada.

Subsidiary Corporations and their Subsidiaries (1): Teleglobe Canada Limited.


Mr. Andre: How many corporations are wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Department of the Secretary of State is responsible and what are their names?


Robert Knight Andras: Corporations wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Department of the Secretary of State is responsible: Department of the Secretary of State- 17. Department Crown Corporations-Schedule "B"-F.A. Act (1): National Museums of Canada. Agency Crown Corporations-Schedule "C"-F.A. Act (2) Canadian Film Development Corporation; Centennial Commission. Proprietary Crown Corporations-Schedule "D"-F.A. Act (1): Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Other Government Corporations (2): Canada Council; National Arts Centre Corporation. Mixed Enterprise Corporations (1): Association for the Export of Canadian Books. Subsidiary Corporations and Their Subsidiaries (7): Books Canada Incorporated; Books Canada Limited; CJBR Radio Limitee; CJBR Television Limitee; Les Entreprises Roleo Inc.; Livres du Canada S.A.; St. Clair River Broadcasting Limited. Associated Corporations (3): Master FM Limited; Television St.-Francois Limitee; Visnews Limited.


Mr. Andre: How many corporations are wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs is responsible and what are their names?


Robert Knight Andras: Corporations wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs is responsible: Ministry of State for Urban Affairs-3. Agency Crown Corporations-Schedule "C"-F.A. Act (1): National Capital Commission. Proprietary Crown Corporations-Schedule "D"-F.A. Act (1): 207 Queen's Quay West Ltd.


Mr. Andre: How many corporations are wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Department of Labour is responsible and what are their names?


Robert Knight Andras: Corporations wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Department of Labour is responsible: Department of Labour-none.


Mr. Andre: How many corporations are wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Department of Fisheries is responsible and what are their names?


Robert Knight Andras: Corporations wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Department of Fisheries is responsible: Department of Fisheries-none.
March 1, 1978


Mr. Andre: How many corporations are wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Ministry of State for the Environment is responsible and what are their names?


Robert Knight Andras: Corporations wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Ministry of State for the Environment is responsible: Ministry of State for the Environment-5. Departmental Crown Corporations-Schedule "B"-F.A. Act (1): Fisheries Prices Support Board. Agency Crown Corporations-Schedule "C"-F.A. Act (1): Canadian Saltfish Corporation. Proprietary Crown Corporations-Schedule "D"- F.A. Act (1): Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. Other Entities and Associates (2): The Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada; International Fisheries Commission Pension Society.


Mr. Andre: How many corporations are wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Department of Veterans Affairs is responsible and what are their names?


Robert Knight Andras: Corporations wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Department of Veterans' Affairs is responsible: Department of Veterans' Affairs-5. Departmental Crown Corporations-Schedule "B"-F.A. Act (2); Director of Soldier Settlement; The Director, Veterans' Land Act. Other Entities and Associates (3): The Army Benevolent Fund; Commonwealth War Graves Commission; Last Post Fund.


Mr. Andre: How many corporations are wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is responsible and what are their names?


Robert Knight Andras: Corporations wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is responsible: Department of Regional Economic Expansion-42. Proprietary Crown Corporations-Schedule "D"-F.A. Act (1): Cape Breton Development Corporation. Mixed Enterprise Corporations (5): La Societe Inter-port du Quebec; La Societe du pare industriel et commercial aeropor-tuaire de Mirabel; Metropolitan Area Growth Investments Limited; New Brunswick Multiplex Corporation Limited; Newfoundland and Labrador Development Corporation Ltd. Subsidiary Corporations and Their Subsidiaries (7): Cabot Craft Industries Limited; Cape Breton Lamb Limited; Cape Breton Marine Farming Limited; Cape Breton Welsh Black Limited; Daar (Cape Breton) Limited; Mountain View Milling Limited; Whale Cove Summer Village Limited. Associated Corporations (29): A. Northcott Limited; Baxter's Uniform Ship Limited; Blomidon By-Products Limited; Canadian Cushion Craft Limited; Cape Breton Vegetable Company Limited; East Coast Recyclers Limited; Eastern Aviation Contractors Limited; Fort Amherst Sea Foods Limited; Gander Lumber Company Limited; George Sexton Limited; Glass
Order Paper Questions
Fibre Plastics Limited; Green Bay Mining Company Limited; Industrial Systems Limited; KOA NFLD Limited; Loreb Steel Fabricators Limited; Mercator Enterprises Limited; Mercator Shipping Limited; M. Hodge & Sons Limited; Notre-Dame Bay Fisheries Limited; Pelcon Limited; P. Janes & Sons Limited; Ralland Forest Products Limited; Rayo Forest Enterprises Limited; Terra Nova Shoes Limited; Undersea Equipment Ltd.; Vinland Export Company Limited; Wallken Enterprises Limited; Watkins Enterprises Limited; Whitten Fish Oils Limited.


Mr. Andre: How many corporations are wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Department of Transport is responsible and what are their names?


Robert Knight Andras: Corporations wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Department of Transport is responsible: Department of Transport-102. Agency Crown Corporations-Schedule "C"-F.A. Act (2): Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited; National Harbours Board. Proprietary Crown Corporations-Schedule "D"- F.A. Act (9): Air Canada; Atlantic Pilotage Authority; Canadian National Railways; Great Lakes Pilotage Authority Ltd.; Laurentian Pilotage Authority; Northern Transportation Company Limited; Pacific Pilotage Authority; The Seaway International Bridge Corporation Limited; The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority. Other Government Corporations (12): Belleville Harbour Commission; *The Canadian Wheat Board; Fraser River Harbour Commission; Hamilton Harbour Commissioners; Lakehead Harbour Commission; Nanaimo Harbour Commission; North Fraser Harbour Commission; Oshawa Harbour Commission; Port Alberni Harbour Commission; Toronto Harbour Commissioners; Windsor Harbour Commission; Winnipeg and St. Boniface Harbour Commission. Mixed Enterprise Corporations (2): Canarctic Shipping Pacific; Thousand Islands Bridge Authority. Subsidiary Corporations and their subsidiaries (59): Air Transit Canada; Airlines Maintenance Buildings Limited; Autoport Limited; Canac Consultants Limited; Canac Distribution Limited; The Canada and Gulf Terminal Railway Company; Canadian National Express Company; Canadian National Hotels (Moncton) Ltd.; Canadian National Railway Company; The Canadian National Railways Securities Trust; Canadian National Realties Limited; Canadian National Steamship Pacific; Canadian National Telegraph Company; Canadian National Transfer Company; Canadian National Transportation Limited; The Canadian Northern Quebec Railway Company; Canalog Logistics Limited; Canat Limited; Canaven Limited; Central Vermont Railway Inc.; Chalut Transport (1974) Inc.; Chapman Transport Limited; CN (France) S.A.; CN Tower Limited; CN Tower Restaurants Limited; Cronin Transport Limited; Domestic Two Leasing Corporation; Domestic Three Leasing Corporation; Domestic Four Leasing Corporation; Duluth, Rainy Lake & Winnipeg Railway Company; Duluth, Winnipeg and Pacific Railroad Company; Duluth, Winnipeg and Pacific Railway
80031 -7 Wi

March 1, 1978
Order Paper Questions
Company; Eastern Transport Limited; Empire Freightways Limited; Grand Trunk Corporation; Grand Trunk Land Development Corporation; Grand Trunk-Milwaukee Car Ferry Company; Grand Trunk Radio Communications Inc.; Grand Trunk Western Railroad; The Great North Western Telegraph Company of Canada; Grimshaw Trucking and Distributing Ltd.; Hoar Transport Company Limited; Husband International Transport (Ontario) Limited; Husband Transport Limited; Husband Transport (Quebec) Limited; Midland Superior Express Limited; The Minnesota and Manitoba Railroad Company; The Minnesota and Ontario Bridge Commission; Mount Royal Tunnel and Terminal Company Limited; The Northern Consolidated Holding Pacific; Provincial Tankers Limited; The Quebec and Lake St. John Railway Company; Royal Transportation Limited; Swan River-The Pas Transfer Ltd.; The Toronto-Peterborough Transport Company Limited; Touram Group Services Inc; Venturex Limited; Via Rail Canada Inc.; Yellowknife Transportation Company Limited. Associated Corporations (18): Air Jamaica (1968) Limited; The Belt Railway Company of Chicago; Chicago & Western Indian Railroad Company; Compagnie de Gestion de Matane Inc.; Computer Sciences Canada Limited; The Detroit & Toledo Shore Line Railroad Company; Detroit Terminal Railroad Company; East Yard Development Limited; Eurocanadian Shipholdings Limited; Halterm Limited; Intercast SA; Matac Cargo Limited; Metro Centre Developments Limited; Northern Alberta Railways Company; The Public Markets Limited; The Shawinigan Falls Terminal Railway Company; Societe du port ferroviaire de Baie-Comeau-Haute-rive; The Toronto Terminals Railway Company. *
* (Direct responsibility of Hon. Otto Lang.)


Mr. Andre: How many corporations are wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Department of External Affairs is responsible and what are their names?


Robert Knight Andras: Corporations wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Department of External Affairs is responsible: Department of External Affairs-5. Mixed Enterprise Corporations (1): Blue Water Bridge Authority. Other Entities and Associates (4): International Boundary Commission; The International Development Research Centre; International Joint Commission; Roosevelt Campobello International Park Commission.


Mr. Andre: How many corporations are wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Department of Employment and Immigration is responsible and what are their names?


Robert Knight Andras: Corporations wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Department of Employment and Immigration is responsible: Department of Employment and Immigration-1.	Departmental Crown	Corporations-
Schedule "B" F.A. Act (1): Canada Employment and Immigration Commission.


Mr. Andre: How many corporations are wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Department of Finance is responsible and what are their names?


Robert Knight Andras: Corporations wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Department of Finance is responsible: Department of Finance-129. Departmental Crown Corporations-Schedule "B"-F.A. Act (1): Municipal Development and Loan Board. Proprietary Crown Corporations- Schedule "D"-F.A. Act (2): Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation; Federal Mortgage Exchange Corporation. Other Government Corporations (1): Bank of Canada. Mixed Enterprise Corporations (2): Canada Development Corporation; Saint John Harbour Bridge Authority. Subsidiary Corporations and their Subsidiaries (74): Analco Inc.; A/S Dumex (Dumex Ltd.), Copenhagen; A/S Dumex, Norway; Bellaplast GmbH; Bellaplast Nederland B.V.; Bio-Research Limited; Canada Pharmacal Co. Limited; Canada Pharmacal Co. (1975) Limited; The Canada Serum Company Limited; CDC Nederland B.V.; CDC Oil & Gas Limited; Comex Nederland B.V.; Corn-Share A.G.; Com Share B.V.; Com Share International B.V.; Corn-Share Limited; Com Share Limited (U.K.); Com Share S.A. (Belgium); Computer Sharing of Canada Limited; Connaught Biologies Limited; Connaught Laboratories Limited; Connlab do Brasil Industria e Commercio Limitada; Connlab Holdings Limited; Distribuidora Adanac S.A.; Dumex Australia (Pty.) Limited, Melbourne; Dumex B.V. Haag; Dumex GmbH, Hamburg; Dumex Lakemedel AB, Halsingborg; Dumex Ltd., Accra; Dumex (Pty.) Ltd., Johannesburg; Dumex SPA, Genoa; General Plastics Company Limited; Genplac Limited; Kayson-Mammoth Limited; Komfort-plast GmbH; Nippon Polymers Company Limited; Nordic Pharmaceutical Company Limited; Nordic Pharmaceuticals Limited; Octo Laboratory Limited; Omnimedic Inc.; OY Dumex AB, Helsinki; Petrosar Limited; Polcrete Properties Incorporated; Polymer Corporation Canada Limited; Polysar Australia Pty. Limited; Polysar Belgium N.V.; Polysar Cayman Limited; Polysar de Venezuela S.A.; Polysar Deutschland GmbH; Polisar do Brasil Produtos Quimicos Ltda.; Polysar Europa S.A.; Polysar France; Polysar GmbH; Polysar Handelmaatschappij B.V.; Polysar Incorporated; Polysar International S.A.; Polysar Italiana S.p.A, Polysar Latex Inc.; Polysar Limited; Polysar Nederland B.V.; Polysar Plastics Inc.; Polysar Resins, Inc.; Polysar Rubber Services Inc.; Polysar Skandinaviska A.B.; Polysar Technical Service Centre N.V.; Polysar (U.K.) Limited; Polysar United States Inc.; Raylo Chemicals Limited; R&I Molecular Research Ltd.; Spabec Ltee; Societe de Latex S.A.; Societe Francaise Polysar; Synthetic Elastomers Development S.A.; Trent Rubber Services Limited. Associated Corporations (49): Advanced Transducers Systems Ltd.; AES Data Ltd.; AIN-KE-JIG Limited; Bellaplast A.G. fur Kunstoffverpackungen; Bellaplast Kun-stoffverpackungen mbH; Bellaplast Maschinenbau Gmbh; Bel-leplast Maschinenverkaufs A.G.; Brown, Farris & Jefferson Ltd.; Canadian Shields Exploration Ltd.; Conat Industries
March 1, 1978

Ltd.; Controlled Environments Ltd.; Coroplast Ltd.; Cross Canada Flights Limited; Cybermedix Limited; Devteck Limited; Envitron Quebec Limited; Envitron Sales Limited; Envi-tron Solar Limited; Foremost International Industries; A. Freen Ltd.; Frio Oil Ltd.; Gestalt International Limited; Hermes Electronics Limited; Hules Mexicanos S.A.; Hypoint Resources Ltd.; Innocan Investments Ltd,; Inno PoP Beverages Limited; Innotech Aviation Limited; International Syst-coms Ltd.; Kapvik Explorations Ltd.; Kisp of Canada; Lauren-tian Concentrates Limited; Machair Surveys Ltd.; Malabar Silver Mines Ltd.; McPhar Instrument Corporation; Merkara Development Inc.; MMN Holdings Ltd.; Northway Survey Corporation Limited; PoP Shoppes International Inc.; PoP Shoppes of America; PoP Shoppes of Canada; Sentrol Systems Ltd.; Strake Technology Limited; Survair Limited; Texasgulf Inc.; Ventek International Inc.; Ventures West Capital Inc.; Venturetek International Limited; Vulcan Industrial Packaging Limited.


Mr. Andre: How many corporations are wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Ministry of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport is responsible and what are their names?


Robert Knight Andras: Corporations wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Ministry of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport is responsible: Ministry of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. The following corporations listed below and under question No. 1067 (Department of National Health and Welfare) are the responsibility of the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport: Hockey Canada Inc.; Loto Canada Inc.; National Sports and Recreation Centre Inc.; Sports Participation Canada Inc.


Mr. Andre: How many corporations are wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Ministry of State (Multiculturalism) is responsible and what are their names?


Robert Knight Andras: Corporations wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Ministry of State (Multiculturalism) is responsible: Ministry of State (Multiculturalism)- none.


Mr. Andre: How many corporations are wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Department of Public Works is responsible and what are their names?


Robert Knight Andras: Corporations wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Department of Public Works is responsible: Department of Public Works-1. Other Government Corporations (1): Public Works Lands Company Limited.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Andre: How many corporations are wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Ministry of State for Science and Technology is responsible and what are their names?


Robert Knight Andras: Corporations wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Ministry of State for Science and Technology is responsible: Ministry of State for Science and Technology-2.	Departmental Crown	Corporations-
Schedule "B"-F.A. Act (2): National Research Council; Science Council of Canada.


Mr. Andre: How many corporations are wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Post Office Department is responsible and what are their names?


Robert Knight Andras: Corporations wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Post Office Department is responsible: Post Office Department-none.


Mr. Andre: How many corporations are wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Department of National Health and Welfare is responsible and what are their names?


Robert Knight Andras: Corporations wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Department of National Health and Welfare is responsible: Department of National Health and	Welfare-6.	Departmental Crown Corporations-
Schedule "B"-F.A. Act (1): Medical Research Council. Agency Crown Corporations-Schedule "C"-F.A. Act (1): *Loto Canada Inc. Other Government Corporations (3): *Hockey Canada Inc.; *National Sports and Recreation Centre Inc.; *Sport Participation Canada Inc. Other Entities and Associates (1): Vanier Institute of the Family. *Responsi-bility of the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (see question No. 1,062).


Mr. Andre: How many corporations are wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Department of Justice is responsible and what are their names?


Robert Knight Andras: Corporations wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Department of Justice is responsible: Department of Justice-1. Other Entities and Associates (1): Canadian Law Information Council.


Mr. Andre: How many corporations are wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Treasury Board is responsible and what are their names?


Robert Knight Andras: Corporations wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Treasury Board is responsible:

March 1, 1978
Order Paper Questions
Treasury Board-1. Other Government Corporations (1): Opcan (direct responsibility of Hon. Robert K. Andras).


Mr. Andre: How many corporations are wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is responsible and what are their names?


Robert Knight Andras: Corporations wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is responsible: Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs-1. Other Government Corporations (1): Federal Insolvency Trustee Agency.


Mr. Andre: How many corporations are wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Ministry of State (Small Business) is responsible and what are their names?


Robert Knight Andras: Corporations wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, owned by the Crown for which the Ministry of State (Small Business) is responsible: Ministry of State (Small Business)-none. The following 2 corporations are the direct responsibility of the Prime Minister:	Departmental Crown	Corporations-
Schedule "B"-F.A. Act (1): Economic Council of Canada. Other Entities and Associates (1): Board of Trustees of the Queen Elizabeth II Canadian Fund to Aid in the Research on the Diseases of Children.


Mr. Howie: Of the $35,276 million spent by Petro-Canada, from January 1, 1976 to September 30, 1977, in search of oil pools off the Atlantic Coast, how much was (a) directly spent for off-shore drilling (b) in joint-cost sharing with other exploration companies?


Alastair William Gillespie: Petro-Canada reports as follows: (a) Of the $35,366 million (revised from $35,276 million as tabled in Question 525 on December 13, 1977) spent by Petro-Canada from January 1, 1976 to September 30, 1977 in search of oil pools off the Atlantic Coast, $29,197 million was directly spent on offshore drilling, (b) $25,775 million.


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1977, what amount did the government spend on studying the economic feasibility of Bay of Fundy tidal power?


Alastair William Gillespie: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: January 1, 1977-December 31, 1977; $957,607.83. The scope of the study covered economic, technical and social considerations.


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1976, how many drillings have been carried out off the Atlantic Coast in search of oil pools?


Alastair William Gillespie: Petro-Canada reports as follows: 12.


Mr. Howie: Are the findings of Petro-Canada in its exploration for oil off the Atlantic Coast public and (a) if so, where can such information be obtained (b) if not, are such findings on file with the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources?


Alastair William Gillespie: Petro-Canada reports as follows: No. (a) Not applicable, (b) Petro-Canada files daily drilling reports and completed reports on wells drilled in frontier areas with both the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. This information is kept confidential by the Departments for two years.


Mr. Howie: To the knowledge of the government, what is the average cost for carrying out one-test drilling from a drilling platform in search for off-shore oil?


Alastair William Gillespie: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: The cost of a single offshore well depends on a number of variables such as the depth and geographical location of the well, the associated weather conditions, and the depth of the water, as well as such economic factors as the world-wide demand for offshore drilling rigs. In Canada, offshore wells have been drilled at locations in the Beaufort Sea, which has long periods of ice cover; on the Labrador Shelf, which has deep water and the threats of icebergs; and on the Scotian Shelf, Grand Banks and West Coast offshore all of which have less severe summer conditions but which have severe winter storms. Well costs, therefore, vary significantly. However, taking the above factors into account, the following values are representative of the total cost drilling a single 10,000 foot well in the following offshore regions: Beaufort Sea, $35-50 million; Labrador Sea, $9 million; Grand Banks, West Coast Offshore, Scotian Shelf $4 million. By way of comparison, a single 10,000 foot well in Alberta costs $3/4- $1 million. It should be added that a significant portion of the cost for a single well program is the cost of mobilizing and demobilizing the necessary equipment. This cost, which normally amounts to $1 to $116 million, is included in the above figures.

March 1, 1978


Mr. Howie: Has the government conducted studies on what the socio-economic impact would be on the Maritime Provinces if Fundy Tidal Power became a reality?


Alastair William Gillespie: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: The study undertaken by the Bay of Fundy Tidal Power Review Board during the period 1975-1977 has included some preliminary assessment of socio-economic impact as part of the Phase 1 program of studies.


Mr. Howie: 
Mr. Howie: 1.	As of December 1, 1977, how many persons were employed by the Marine Biological Station in St. Andrews, New Brunswick?
2.	What is the operating budget for the current fiscal year?


Roméo LeBlanc: 1. As of December 1, 1977, 133 employees were employed by the Marine Biological Station.
2. The operating budget for the current fiscal year is $1,850,000.


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


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Information pertaining to DND expenditures for 1971/72 is not readily available and to provide it would require a great deal of research for which the Department does not have the necessary resources. Data for 1972/73 to 1976/77 for DND and 1970/71 to 1976/77 for DCL is listed below:
DND	($000)
1972/73	$2,398.8
1973/74	2,554.0
1974/75	2,909.8
1975/76	3,313.2
Order Paper Questions
DCL	
1970/71	$14,186
1971/72	52,100
1972/73	70,464
1973/74	58,508
1974/75	88,428
1975/76	19,875
1976/77	41,194


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


Alastair William Gillespie: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: 1970-71, $58,800; 1971-72, $66,060; 197273, $36,950; 1973-74, $27,550; 1974-75, 15,200.00; 1975-76, $125,394.00; 1976-77, $22,231.74; 1977-78, 75,993.50. The amounts listed are not complete figures because the financial information systems in many of EMR's branches are designed to provide a breakdown of expenditures by provinces and territory only.


Mr. Rodriguez: For each fiscal year since 1970, what amount was spent in the Constituency of Nickel Belt by the Department of Justice and those agencies that report to it?
Mr. Roger Young (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice): In so far as the Department of Justice, the Law Reform Commission, the Tax Review Board and the Canadian Judicial Council are concerned: Nil.


Mr. Herbert: What was the average percentage of unemployment in Montreal in (a) 1976 (b)1977?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: (a) 6.7 per cent; (b) 9.1 per cent.
Source: The Labour Force, December 1976, page 79, and December 1977, page 93. Statistics Canada, Catalogue Number 71-001 Monthly.

March 1, 1978
Point of Order


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	Since the inception of the construction programme of heavy water plants in Gentilly (a) what amount did the government pay for (i) Gentilly I (ii) Gentilly II (b) what are the expenses foreseen for Gentilly III?
2.	What is the contribution by Hydro-Quebec to the Government of Quebec for each of its plants?


Alastair William Gillespie: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited reports as follows:
1.	(a) (i) $164.5 million; (ii) $137 million (loan to Hydro-Quebec); (iii) No federal government participation has been approved for Gentilly III.
2.	AECL has no information on contributions between the government of Quebec and its utility (Hydro-Quebec).

[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 359 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	From January 1, 1945 to December 31, 1976 did Canada lend money under programmes of external aid or for any other reason and, if so (a) what was the total amount (b) to which countries (c) on what dates (d) at what rates of interest (e) what period of time?
2.	For the same period, what portions of such loans were reimbursed, by which countries and on what dates?
3.	Have portions of the loans been remitted or cancelled without reimbursement and, if so (a) in favour of which countries (b) on what dates (c) for what reasons (d) under what authority were the debts cancelled?
Return tabled.



POINTS OF ORDER


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order relative to the manner in which questions are being answered. I do not intend to take much of the time of the House but I must take a minute to explain the situation.
In question No. 1,394 the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) asked about the disposition and ownership of Thunder-bird Lodge located on Wrong Lake in Manitoba. The question was, "Who is the owner of the lodge?", and the answer was given on October 17, 1977, at page 8218 of Hansard where the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale), then parliamen-

tary secretary to the President of Privy Council, named Mr. D. W. Gallagher as a director of Thunderbird Lodge.
When Mr. D. W. Gallagher of Winnipeg, Manitoba, was apprised of the answer that appeared in Hansard he wrote to the hon. member for Assiniboia. With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I should like to set the record straight because this gentleman does not have any way in which he can correct the record. Mr. Gallagher wrote to the hon. member for Assiniboia as follows.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. It is some time since the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) was the parliamentary secretary responsible in this area. This point would have to have some immediacy that is not readily apparent to the Chair.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I appreciate you intervention, Mr. Speaker, and I expected it. It has just recently been brought to my attention by Mr. Gallagher that the correction he made in letter form to the parliamentary secretary has never received a response nor has the Hansard record been corrected. It is on that basis that I am trying to correct Hansard with your indulgence.
I will read part of the letter which Mr. Gallagher wrote, as follows:
1.	I am not a director of Thunderbird Lodge, and have never been a director.
2.	I have attended no meetings of the board of directors of Thunderbird Lodge.
3.	I have no involvement in Thunderbird Lodge, nor have I had.
That letter was sent on October 31 of last year and to date Mr. Gallagher has not received a clarification nor has the government seen fit to rise in this House and correct the record. I have now done so.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I never did get that letter from Mr. Gallagher, but I shall check with my predecessor and find out what happened exactly.
[ English ]


MR. MCKINLEY-DELAY IN ANSWERING QUESTIONS ON ORDER PAPER
Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I would like to bring to the attention of the parliamentary secretary responsible for answering questions on the order paper that I have had on the order paper questions Nos. 560 to 673 inclusive since November 14. I was advised by way of an answer to a question that all this information has been fed on to computers within the Department of Public Works, but I see no reason whatsoever for this delay, Mr. Speaker.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
March 1, 1978


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions for the production of documents be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The Elouse resumed, from Tuesday, February 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen (for the Minister of Finance) that Bill C-16, to amend the Bank Act and the Quebec Savings Banks Act, be read the third time and do pass.
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, yesterday evening when I commenced my remarks with respect to Bill C-16 I was pointing out that, if the situation was handled properly, Canada had an attractive opportunity in allowing regulated controlled foreign bank participation in our market place. In Toronto, for example, there are some 40 foreign banks which have already opened offices and which are carrying on a banking operation to the extent that the law now permits. I understand that throughout the country there may be a total of 60 banking concerns carrying on business in Canada which have their head offices in foreign countries. In the Commerce Court there are 26 banks which have an office of some description in that complex. This goes to illustrate the potential that exists. We should, therefore, get on with passing the necessary banking legislation to allow these concerns to become participants in the Canadian banking and financial markets.
As I mentioned yesterday, we have a reciprocal agreement. Our Canadian banks, much to their credit, have been active in many countries around the world for some time. The Bank of Nova Scotia is active in such countries as Argentina, Australia, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Bermuda, Brazil, the Cayman Islands, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, England, France, Grenada, Haiti, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Ireland, Jamaica, Japan, Malaysia, Lebanon, Mexico, The Netherlands, Norway, Panama, the Philippines, St. Lucia, Puerto Rico, Singapore, Trinidad and Tobago, United States, the Virgin Islands and West Germany. I could continue. The Royal Bank
Bank Act
of Canada is likewise very active in many countries around the world.
In today's money market, the international market is the name of the game. Banks create activity amongst themselves. Unfortunately we have remained sheltered from this international type of banking. There is a tremendous opportunity for cities such as Montreal, Vancouver, Toronto and Winnipeg- as was suggested last night-to become international banking centres. The potential is there. There are foreign banks active now in the Canadian market to the extent the law will permit. I am referring to very large banks. For example, the Deutsche Bank, which aside from the Bank of America in the United States is the largest bank in the world, has an office in Toronto. Incidentally, there is no particular mystery to the operation of these banks. They are all listed in the yellow pages of the Montreal and Toronto phone books.
In considering what should be done respecting Bill C-16, we should remember that we will be postponing yet again the revisions to our Bank Act. This in turn will mean those foreign banks which could contribute something to Canada, under proper regulation, will be denied for perhaps another year active participation in the Canadian market.
Some of those banks I have referred to have been renting and staffing their offices for two and a half to three years. At some point we must accept the fact that their host countries may respond. If we do not find their banking concerns suitable for doing business in Canada, our banking concerns may possibly have their doors shut. That, Mr. Speaker, would be tragic.
As I mentioned yesterday, the assets of Canadian banks amount to $150 billion. These banks are quite capable of joining this international banking community, which is a positive element we have. It is said that we should facilitate the development of sectors within the Canadian economy where there is an advantage, and one of those advantages is in the banking community. We are good bankers. We understand finance. In many ways we could become the Switzerland of North America if we would accept that challenge and lead instead of follow.
What we are witnessing with respect to the revisions of the Bank Act is discouraging. Everybody realized the Bank Act had to be changed by June 30, 1977. That was the tenth anniversary of the last revision.
As my leader pointed out today, on March 5, 1974 the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) asked the government for the first time what did the government propose doing with respect to the review of the Bank Act. Almost four years later we are still hearing from a third minister of finance that the legislation is being drafted. That is shameful. Why is it still being drafted? We are told by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) that there has been agreement in principle. The policy has been established, but unfortunately although it has been sent over to the Department of Justice the draftsmen cannot get on with their job. If that is true, it is a tremendous reflection on the workings of this cabinet. It is counterproductive to have the Department of Justice frustrating the will of

March 1, 1978
Bank Act
the Minister of Finance if he is sincere in saying that he would like to table this legislation as soon as possible. Our concern should be the effect that this will have on the whole banking community in Canada. It preserves uncertainty, something which should not be preserved. Indeed, it denies Canada that opportunity of thrusting the country more forcefully into the international banking community to which I have referred.
We have heard many discussions concerning the monetary situation and the crisis our dollar is in at the present time. We know too that the government is trying to raise foreign funds to offset some of the drain of reserves which will be reflected tomorrow. I understand that the drain of our reserves in February is something over half a billion dollars. It could be higher. I understand as well, and this is a published figure, that we had a drain of our reserves of $200 million in January.
My suggestion which would alleviate the drain on our reserves would be to allow our banking community to become more internationalized in the way I have outlined. Let this nation become the Switzerland of North America. I can assure the House the real growth figures we have been talking about as our potential would be reality as opposed to the sad display which we witnessed today. The Minister of Finance had to stand up and admit that while he was in Montreal he referred to fourth quarter real growth of something over an annualized 5 per cent. He then had to eat his words when the published figures showed it was a little over 3 per cent. That occurred yesterday, and that is my first point.
The second point I would like to make when considering this extension with regard to the time limitation of the Bank Act is this. Think of the uncertain questions that this is leaving. For example, the white paper suggested that the credit unions should be pulled within our banking system. They suggested that the time had come when reserves which are normally expected from banking operations as far as the Bank of Canada is concerned should also be expected from credit unions. We know that the credit unions are very much opposed to this type of approach. They would like to be left alone. They feel that some type of federal regulation is not welcome, bearing in mind they are largely provincially regulated and governed at the present time.
This is where we get an unfortunate clash between the politics of government and economic reality. On one hand we are told that the government intends to include these credit unions in the new banking legislation. In fact, most will be surprised if the credit unions are not squarely included within the draft bill whenever it is produced. That may clearly be the attitude of the Department of Finance, but the political decision that has been made at the highest level, the level of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), is that the government does not want this Bank Act to be shown because they do not want to live with the political consequences. In short, they do not want to have the draft legislation before this nation pending an election.
One minister of the cabinet was very candid with a banking friend of mine. He said the government would not show the draft Bank Act legislation because they did not want to take on the caisses populaire of Quebec. They know that what they intend to do with the caisses populaire will be unpopular. It means votes as far as they are concerned. Frankly, they are not going to run that risk. That is what we are living with here. We have sheer political expediency on the part of this government, in spite of the fact the economic realities cry out for more decisive decisions to be made by this cabinet.
Certain members of the government are a little startled at that blunt language. The fact is it is the truth. The economic condition of this country is being put on the back burner as this government gets ready for an election which they anticipate will be some time in May or June. Let there be no fudging of this question. As far as the cabinet level is concerned, this bill was conveniently sent over to the justice department and conveniently left there to give the government an excuse for not showing their colours with regard to the types of things to which I am referring.
Again I wish to touch on this whole question as to why we urgently need a change as far as our approach to the Bank Act revision is concerned. In short, since 1967 there has been a tremendous transition in our banking industry in Canada. I will put a few facts on the record. For example, the banks' share of deposits has actually declined by almost 3 per cent since the last Bank Act revision in 1967. That is relative to all deposit-taking institutions. Credit unions have shown the largest increase, climbing from 9.9 per cent to 12 per cent of the 1975 total.
Generally speaking, as we know, Canadians are considered among the world's highest savers. Total savings on a national accounts basis as a percentage of personal disposable income ranged between a low of 5.5 per cent in 1970 to a high of 10.2 per cent in 1975. A portion of these savings ultimately end up as personal savings deposits in one of the various deposit-taking institutions. In short, there has been a redistribution as far as deposits are concerned as to who owns the savings of this nation.
Let me put it another way. Since the last revision to the Bank Act, the chartered banks' share of this pot has gone down 3 per cent while that of the credit unions has gone up 2xh per cent as far as the over-all share is concerned. We are talking big figures. Total personal savings held by all of these deposit-taking institutions have increased by more than 300 per cent since 1967, to over $75 billion in 1976. Personal savings deposits in the 22 million deposit accounts in the chartered banks accounted for over $30 billion of this total, or about 40 per cent, compared to more than $10 billion in 1967.
The reason I put some of these figures on the record is because sometimes we do not acknowledge the tremendous explosion we have had in our banking system. When the Porter commission last sat and reviewed the financial community in Canada, total assets, certainly domestic bank assets, were approximately $13 billion. Domestic bank assets at the time of our last revision were approximately $25 billion. Today they

March 1, 1978

are over $100 billion. That is the type of explosion that calls out for a relatively early review of our banking system and, above all, a new Bank Act to give confidence and certainty to the system which is needed in a highly industrialized nation such as Canada.
I referred to the credit union position. I referred to the fact that the government is timorous with regard to showing its hands with respect to the credit union. They obviously feel that the politically expedient thing to do is to bury this whole question and hopefully get through the next election on the understanding that perhaps they will do something subsequent to that election if, heaven forbid, they do get re-elected.
Let me refer to the Economic Council of Canada study and the fact that a committee of another part of this parliament reviewed the white paper that was tabled by this government in August 1976. After all those reviews and all the briefs that have been sent in, the government owes it to the Canadian public to show exactly what is their position with regard to the whole banking community in Canada.
As far as credit unions are concerned, I do not think a good case has been made as to why credit unions have to be put smack bang right into the banking system, as has been suggested. Let me refer to the recommendations of the Economic Council of Canada. For example, they mention that credit unions should be controlled to some degree. They make various other recommendations. My point is that one of the reasons for this unsatisfactory real growth is that the business community feels an overwhelming sense of insecurity. There is a lack of confidence. The government's indecision, its stalling on this Bank Act for political reasons, is contributing to this lack of confidence.
Most members realize that our housing industry is not prospering to the degree we would like. Who in this country feels that our mortgage interest rate structure is acceptable? Surely it is points like that which should be covered within a Bank Act revision in the hope that we can free up more mortgage money and hopefully lower interest rates for those who would like to buy properties in Canada or refinance their existing homes.
As far as that is concerned, let me put a few more figures on the record to show what could be done by a suitable revision to the Bank Act. In 1967 the banks had very little power to go into the mortgage field, but as a result of the removal of the main deterrent to bank mortgage lending in that year we find that the banks have entered that field to a greater extent than most of us would have expected. Incidentally, their gain has been largely at the expense of the life insurance companies. We find that the respective share of the banks and of the life insurance companies has been reversed as far as mortgage holdings are concerned, while that of trust companies has remained relatively stable at about 50 per cent of the market.
Let me put these figures on the record. While the total mortgage market has grown 375 per cent, from $1.7 billion to $8.3 billion, in the past 11 years, bank mortgage lending has
Bank Act
grown by 1240 per cent. In short, the activities of the banks in the mortgage field have grown four times as fast as mortgages have grown in Canada generally. This is the indication of the effect that a change in banking legislation can bring about. With suitable changes in this long overdue legislation I suggest we could once again bring about an effect of that kind, not only with regard to foreign international banking but also with regard to our domestic market, which at the present time is "frozen" as far as credit and mortgages are concerned.
Let me touch again on one very important question, the question of the extent to which our banks should be committed to enter new fields of activity. To what extent, for example, should they be able to get into the computer field or into the leasing field? These are issues which ought to be clarified. At the present time there are institutions which might be desirous of developing data processing facilities to a greater extent, but which feel that if the banks are to be given carte blanche to enter the field their efforts would be clobbered and their investment ill-advised. Again, there are examples of leasing firms which are very nervous about expanding because they feel that if the banks were given power to compete with them they would not be able to match the competition. These are uncertainties which can and must be clarified by the tabling of an amended Bank Act.
When I talk about details, perhaps it would be helpful if I were specific. There is sometimes a tendency in this House for members to gloss over the facts. The first suggestion of an amendment to the Bank Act was made on September 6, 1973. At that time, Mr. Turner, then minister of finance, stated that he hoped to introduce legislation in 1974. The hon. member who was the leader of the NDP at that time asked whether it could not be done earlier, say some time in 1973. Is it not almost ludicrous, Mr. Speaker? There was a suggestion being made that an amended bill should be introduced some time in 1973 instead of waiting until 1974. And here we are, now, in 1978, and we are told by the Minister of Finance that legislation is still being drafted over at the justice department.
In the Speech from the Throne on February 27, 1974, amendments to the Bank Act were promised. I notice that the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), speaking on the Address in Reply-I am sorry he is not in the House today- stated:
I am most pleased that this session will see amendments to the Bank Act. The Canadian banking system is substantially non-competitive and is run from Bay Street. This statement will bring vehement denials from our chartered banks but almost 100 per cent agreement from the banks' customers.
It is four years later and I have yet to hear the hon. member for Vaudreuil standing up and addressing the obvious question to the Minister of Finance: Where is the Bank Act amendment about which I spoke so favourably in 1974?
Again, on March 5, 1974, my hon. friend from Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) put this question to the then minister of finance:
Will the minister please make a statement shortly on what is being done with regard to a review of the Bank Act? The Bank Act has to come up for renewal... and a lot of hard work has to be done.

March 1, 1978
Bank Act
To the best of my knowledge, my hon. friend never did get an answer. At about the same time, or a little later, I asked whether the time had not come to review the banking industry again, whether there should not be another Porter commission inquiring into banking, the assets of which had grown from $20 billion to $80 billion. I point out that today our banks collectively have $150 billion in assets compared with the $20 billion at the time of the last review of the Bank Act by a commission. Surely it is unforgiveable that the Minister of Finance should still be telling us today that he cannot produce a bill even before the Easter break because it is lingering somewhere in the Department of Justice.
On June 19, 1975, the then minister of finance told the House:
One would hope we will have a draft bill ready by the middle of next year, allowing for hearings on that bill before the final bill is presented to parliament.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I must point out that the time allotted to the hon. member has expired. He may, however, continue unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I shall not take undue advantage of my extended time. The minister of finance of that time went on to say it would be good parliamentary practice to have an extensive hearing with respect to the Bank Act, which he had promised would be introduced early in 1976. By December 2, 1975, we find the then minister of finance saying:
We shall be placing before the House before next summer legislation amending the Bank Act as a result of the decennial revision.
On December 3, in reply to a question by myself, the minister seemed to waffle a little. He stated:
If I may elaborate further on my statement of yesterday, I indicated that we intend to give first reading to the bill next year without proceeding further with it so that there will be full opportunity for the community to study the bill and comment on it.
He then went on to say:
We shall not proceed with it in the present session.
At least, though, there was an undertaking to give the bill first reading so as to allow discussion to take place.
On May 17, 1976, we find the following statement in the budget of the then minister of finance:
Finally, to refer to another important part of the financial system, the government's proposals on the decennial revision of the Bank Act will be brought to the House later in the year. This will afford us an occasion for broad consideration of the task of Financing the Canadian economy.
We did not see it. What we did see during the recess in August, 1976, was a white paper on banking. It was finally tabled later in that year.
Again we find that on October 14, 1976, my House leader put a question to the present House leader of the government.

The President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) stated at that time:
Having regard to the reference to the white paper on banking, I have not had an opportunity of discussing that with the Minister of Finance or my colleagues. When I do so, which I hope will be soon, I will communicate the results to the House.
That was the answer in reply to my colleague's question as to whether we were going to have a reference of the white paper to the appropriate committee to allow some discussion of the important matters the then minister of finance had referred to. On February 15, 1977, the then minister of finance broke the news to us when he said:
-it appears that it will not now be possible to have a fully drafted Bank Act in time for full consideration by parliament before the present Bank Act expires on June 30 next...
It would therefore be the intention to introduce a short bill to extend the life of the current Bank Act for a further six months so that parliament may have adequate time to deal with the matter.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, this extension was not for six months but for 12 months. Partly as a result of the draftsmanship of my colleague the hon. member for Edmonton West the original wording was changed. The bill we now have before us states that, "subject to this act, the bank may carry on the business of banking until 31st day of March, 1978, and no longer". In short we have the amendment to the 1977 Bank Act which simply gave another nine months of extended time within which the government would bring something before this House.
There is something that is perhaps being overlooked, Mr. Speaker. Because of that legislation the government today has its back to the wall. If the government does not get the extension it is asking for in Bill C-16, it cannot call the election it presumably wishes. It cannot call the election for the very simple reason that the banks would disintegrate on March 31. Surely no responsible government would ever call an election, dissolving parliament, with the realization that on March 31 the Bank Act would no longer exist; the banks would have no constitution and literally could not carry on further.
The extending legislation to which 1 have referred is very clear. It states that the banks may carry on until the 31st day of March, 1978-but no longer. There is no provision to cover the event of parliament not being in session. There is no provision whatsoever other than the termination of the banks.
I mention this because it clearly demonstrates the precarious way this government is running the economy of this country. The government is asking us today, on March 1, to pass legislation which, if not passed, would result in the banks disintegrating on March 31. Certainly it is unbelievable when you think of the consequences to the Canadian public if the government ever dared call an election. With the dissolution of parliament there could be no revision of the Bank Act passed. That would mean there would be no Bank Act on April 1 of this year, with the result that we would have no banks. That is an indication of the precarious way this Minister of Finance is directing the finances of this country.
March 1, 1978

I could go on, Mr. Speaker. On December 13, for example, when this question was raised, the present Minister of Finance stated:
I will be introducing additional legislation as early as possible when we come back in January so that the committee will be able to start the very difficult work of reviewing the Bank Act again.
That was in December of last year. We were promised by this minister that legislation would be brought before us in January so we could commence as early as possible a review of whatever provisions the government proposed. On that same day I spoke of the need to have an early tabling of the banking legislation to allow us to look at it. At the committee the matter was pressed again, and on January 31 the minister stated:
I do not know exactly when the drafting will be completed.
That was the drafting of the Bank Act bill. He went on to state:
It is not something that is under my control. I can guess, but a guess is a guess- mid-March or something like that. I hope earlier but there is nothing that I can do.
That was on January 31. Here we are today when, in response to a question by my leader, the Minister of Finance said it was still out of his control, and he could not even promise that the bill would be tabled by March 22 when we hope to recess for Easter. That is no way to run a country, no way to run a Department of Finance, and certainly no way to play fair with the financial institutions of this country.
If the Bank Act revision has such a low priority with the emperor of this country, the Prime Minister-and 1 do not fault the Minister of Finance for this-it is time the Canadian public was made aware of that fact. It is time the Canadian public was made aware of the type of political expediency that comes first with the emperor, the Prime Minister, as opposed to the hard economic needs of this nation, such as a properly constituted banking community under a revised Bank Act.
On February 27 we had another comment concerning when the bill might be brought in. In short, every comment by the Minister of Finance or his parliamentary secretary has underlined the fact that, quite frankly, they do not have control of the situation. Charged with the responsibility of running a credible financial situation in Canada, the minister presumably is being overruled by that politically expedient Prime Minister.
I make this reference because unfortunately credit in Canada means so very much compared to what it means in other countries. Our consumer credit in relation to personal incomes may now be the highest in the world. Quite frankly, I would suggest that is a dubious honour. That was an honour that used to be held by United States citizens. In 1960, Canadian consumer credit as a proportion of our disposable income was 15.5 per cent-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think there is a rule involved here. We gave permission to the hon. member a few minutes ago to complete his remarks. It is now 15 minutes later and he is just finishing the first phrase.
Bank Act
That is a bit long. I do not know if he will conclude in the next minute or two, but I think it would then be fair to give the floor to someone else.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I must remind the minister that once the House gives a member unanimous consent there is not much we can do about it.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to point out that once we give the hon. member unanimous consent he has unlimited time.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated when the House was good enough to give me extended time, I will not be unduly long. My only comment to the Minister of Finance regarding the extra time I am taking this afternoon is that the equivalent amount was perhaps used up by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) last night when he interrupted me so frequently during my initial remarks.
My conclusion is simply that we are not talking in terms of just commercial complications or commercial impact. Consumer credit in this country is extremely high. It is an extremely important thing for the citizens of this country. Perhaps it is a dubious honour, but there is probably more consumer credit held by the average Canadian than the citizens of any other country in the world.
In 1960, Canadian consumer credit as a proportion of our disposable income was 15.5 per cent compared to 16 per cent in the U.S. In 1974 this ratio had soared in Canada to 23.1 per cent compared to 19.4 per cent in the United States. On average, every member of our employed labour force owed more than $2,250 of consumer debt in 1974. That figure has naturally gone up since that time.
Apparently Canadian attitudes with regard to credit have modified since the fifties. It has become more acceptable to separate the pleasure of acquisition from the pain of payment by the use of credit. Our chartered banks have been the leaders in servicing the public in its desire for credit. Approximately 20 years ago the banks held only 15.2 per cent of the personal loans in the country. Currently they hold over 55 per cent of all consumer credit, which in itself has expanded tenfold, from $2.9 billion to almost $30 billion today.
We must look at deposits, mortgages, consumer credit, foreign bank participation and the complication respecting credit unions. Clearly, there are very serious matters which should be dealt with promptly by this government. I urge the government to bring in the Bank Act without further delay. If in fact the government has frustration with the Department of Justice, it is time for it to be dramatized to the Canadian public. That will be the intention of my party in the days ahead.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with Bill C-16 before it passes third reading. I should like to make remarks concerning farm

March 1, 1978
Bank Act
improvement loans, small businessmen's loans and fisheries improvement loans.


Mr. Lumley:: Those areas have nothing to do with the Bank Act.


Robert Elgin McKinley: These loans are received from banks. We are dealing with the Bank Act at the present time.
During the past number of years, most banks do not want to admit that this legislation exists. This legislation has been on the books for many years. It was amended last session in order to make the limits of loans higher and to make the definition of the small businessman higher. Amending this legislation did not do anything to make it more usable by farmers, small businessmen or fishermen.
At the time of the amendments to these acts last year, we were informed that negotiations would take place with the banks to establish an equitable interest rate for the granting of these loans. Apparently this has never been done. Farmers, fishermen and small businessmen have been turned down regularly when requesting loans under these acts.


Mr. Abbott:: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member would not wish to speak incorrectly. I realize he is very interested in this area. Negotiations such as he described took place. Regulations were passed to amend the interest rate to a point above prime. The Canadian Bankers' Association has expressed warm support. It will work hard to improve the utilization of this act. Only $80 million was lent last year, but we expect much more to be lent in the months ahead. The same situation will apply in respect to farmers. I just wanted to inform the hon. member of those facts.


Robert Elgin McKinley: I thank the hon. Minister of State (Small Business) (Mr. Abbott) for his intervention. I am pleased to know that some action has been taken. Perhaps it was as a result of the question I posed to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) some time ago in order to get him moving on this situation. Until I posed that question, nothing had been done.
I would like to see more done in this direction. Since this legislation is on the books, it must be adhered to by the banks. If it is not adhered to, the legislation might as well be done away with. At this stage in our history it is more important for these loans to be granted by the banks, because farm incomes are down approximately 30 to 40 per cent for the last two years. Approximately three years ago the banks were not too interested in these particular loans because farmers were making enough money and small businessmen were doing fairly well. At that time the banks did not require government backing in order to grant these loans. They suggested that a demand loan would be granted based on collateral.
It is time for the government to provide a policy to the banks which can be followed in order to provide loans that are government backed, up to the percentage called for in the act. I am referring to loans to farmers, fishermen and small businessmen. I realize these people in my area are having difficulty being granted these loans.
'
As expressed by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), I am also very disappointed that the original Bank Act is being extended to the early part of 1979 instead of our debating the Bank Act as revised by the government. That would provide us with a chance to go over the act and discover the improvements it requires, as well as taking action in that regard.
The main reason the government does not want to bring in the Bank Act now is because it would contain unpopular provisions regarding the credit unions and the caisses populates, particularly in Quebec. That is not the manner in which a responsible government should act. The Bank Act should be brought in as quickly as possible in order for hon. members to see what it is, think about it, make necessary changes and make sure arrangements are made to ensure that farmers, fishermen and small businessmen are able to obtain loans under this act.


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to address myself to this particular bill. Before the matter is brought to a vote, I should like to make a few comments.
I am as anxious as all hon. members to have this matter come to a vote, primarily because it is another opportunity to bring to the attention of Canadians the very serious shortcomings of the government of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) with respect to economic policy and the economic leadership which is greatly needed at this time. During the period of time that the minister has been in his portfolio, he has faced some of the most crucial economic times in the history of Canada. Certainly they are most crucial from the point of view of the economy of our country since the last great depression.
Approximately four years ago the matter concerning changes to the Bank Act was brought to the attention of the government by such hon. members as the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). At that time it was pointed out that it was absolutely essential for the government to take steps to commence discussion, consideration and the establishment of proposals, so that by the time the act expired there would be in place provisions to go forward for another ten years. Therefore, it is not a question of whether the government was given adequate notice, nor whether the government had sufficient time to bring forward proposals. In fact, this is the second extension the government is requesting in order to carry on with the provisions of this bill. This is another indication of the lack of ideas on the part of the government regarding Canada's economy and the future we face.
The Bank Act is a very important and crucial instrument in the over-all economic planning of our country. If the chartered banks do not have any idea as to the direction in which our country is going in this particular area, nor as to the policies of the government, then how can they play their full role in the development of a stable, progressive and expansive economy?
March 1, 1978

I think the fact is that the minister, at the time he held the portfolio, had not really come to grips with the job. Because if he had, he would have wasted no time in ensuring, if he were going to ask for a second extension, that he had specific proposals and a specific date to lay before parliament for the introduction of the proposed Bank Act containing, as it should, the changes which this government plans to bring in. I am the last one to suggest that this action might have any bearing on the electoral prospects this year, but it seems to me that this matter transcends mere electoral prospects and that it is a duty which this government owes to the country. The minister should stand in his place at the conclusion of this debate, as he is entitled to do, and make a firm statement with respect to the timing of the introduction of the proposed legislation, so that Canadians involved in banking or in areas related to banking will be able to prepare themselves for this legislation and be given assistance and counsel in areas where they may be affected.
I simply wanted to make this brief intervention now because this legislation concerns people right across the country. People feel that the government has no sense of direction; it seems to be floundering, as has been demonstrated by the lack of confidence in our dollar in the international monetary market. It seems to be manifested in the way in which our economy is managed. The prospects seem to be very bleak. I do not say this out of a sense of pride or any glee. I say it with sorrow, because a country like Canada, which has so much to offer and so much potential, deserves leadership which this government is neither able nor capable of providing.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in this third reading debate of this minor bill which has so little in it, merely a 12 months' hoist to the Bank Act which should have been presented to the House a long time ago.
In view of the fact that Canadians have always taken an interest in the banking system and that it was decided that it was in the best interests of the country to have a ten year review of the Bank Act, it is with a good deal of reservation that Canadians are looking at this bill and at the failure of the government to introduce a new Bank Act. Until this is done, the financial community is hamstrung and the economic wellbeing of this country is hampered. Not only are the very large banks uncertain but so are small credit unions which have considerable reservations with respect to this legislation.
I know from the letters I have been receiving that small credit unions, their managers and supporters, are following this debate with interest. A suspicion has arisen amongst credit union people that somehow the legislation is being stalled at the insistence of senior bank officers in order to hamper the growth of our credit unions and caisses populaires. Perhaps these suspicions are not altogether well founded. Certainly these institutions have greatly contributed to the economic life of this country over the years, particularly in rural communities. They view this delay with considerable alarm. They wonder if the government is deliberately stalling the revision of
Bank Act
the Bank Act because they have legislation in store for credit unions which would not meet with acceptance from them. Certainly the public has a right to know before the election is called, and the government should not foist on them legislation with which they cannot live. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) should come clean with the House of Commons and with the public and give us an outline of the new Bank Act which, he says, is being drafted and which he cannot get back from the Department of Justice.
There is no doubt that we should have a new Bank Act and everyone knows that changes to it are needed, but what they will be it is difficult to know. Will they be so unpleasant that the voters will not like them? Of course, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has said that the government is a party of the radical centre. Just what does that mean? How radical is it? He said also, "We are a party of the radical middle". I have never heard of any people in the middle of the political spectrum being called radicals. Indeed, they do not do very much, and that is what this bill is all about. I think this short bill is merely a prescription to go on doing nothing.
Surely now is the time when the new Bank Act is necessary to give us a vision of the way ahead. The government even put out a glossy pamphlet a few months ago called, "The Way Ahead"; but in view of the delay of the Bank Act perhaps it should be called "The Way Behind".
It is a long time since the economy of this country has been more uncertain and there has been such a pessimistic outlook. In yesterday's issue of the Globe and Mail there was a survey by the Bank of Montreal which had polled 2,261 businesses which showed a generally uniform gloomy outlook. They thought there would be a continuing rise in consumer prices. It is interesting to note that some 60 per cent of the surveyed respondents felt that the devaluation of the Canadian dollar hurt their competitive position, while only 40 per cent believed that it had improved it. This shows mixed feelings about the devaluation of the dollar among those who should know best. Most thought that there would be no change in capital spending, and a large majority suggested that the federal government should cut back on spending. Certainly the necessity for the federal government to borrow $200 million in our circumstances demonstrates the underlying weakness of our position in the world economy.
The Minister of Finance even suggested that he would go to the New York market in order to raise the foreign borrowing to support the dollar which he had announced last week. Certainly it is difficult to agree with the minister that the dollar is floating, at least cleanly, when we have committed such a large amount of our reserves to the so-called orderly flow. The other day the Minister of Finance said in Montreal that the recovery is gaining momentum. He said that in the third and fourth quarters of last year the long term growth rate has increased, but according to Statistics Canada, our activity was off markedly in the fourth quarter.
It is stated in the Toronto Star today that in 1977 the growth rate dropped to 2.6 per cent. Certainly this compares

March 1, 1978
Bank Act
unfavourably with the increase of 4.9 per cent in 1976 and 1.1 per cent in 1975.
The government has just brought down its spending estimates. The President of Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) was elated at the fact that over-all government expenditures were restricted to an increase of some 9.8 per cent. In fact, he forgot to say that even if they could be restricted to that extent, the taxation rates are not keeping up with the inflation rates, so that we can expect greater and greater deficits. With the deficit of some $9 billion this year, and upward of $10 billion or $12 billion forecast for next year, surely it cannot be said that this government is running a tight financial ship.
There has been a great deal of mismanagement in this government over the past ten years. In a speech to a mining association a senior tax consultant suggested that the Canadian mining industry faces two decades of low returns because of federal and provincial changes in tax laws some years ago. The federal government has not moved to improve the situation. Our financial institutions are in a state of flux. For instance, Sun Life decided, for various reasons, that it should move out of the province of Quebec. I cannot say I agree or disagree with the motives of Sun Life, but I believe it has the right to move to a location which suits its method of doing business. After all, it would be difficult to comply with the regulations the government of Quebec feels are necessary and still do business with the rest of the country.
According to a story in today's Montreal Star, American banking institutions and brokers have threatened to flood the market with millions of dollars in Quebec bonds if the Quebec government does not tone down its nationalist initiatives. This might be one of the reasons Mr. Levesque did not introduce nationalist measures in his inaugural address to the National Assembly.
Westerners are interested in the Bank Act. Canadian banking institutions tend to be concentrated in Montreal and Toronto. The workings of these banking institutions have caused a decrease in activity in western Canada. One individual involved with architectural work told me he had to go to Toronto every two weeks to get money to carry out building plans. In assessing new banking rules and new legislation it is important to take into account that whatever may be the future of this country, whether it be a so-called sovereignty-association, a confederation, or whatever, the regions will have to shoulder more of the burden of carrying out their own functions. We in western Canada are anxious that there be more banking facilities in the west and that the people who live in the west have more control over them.
The minister has been lax in not bringing forward revisions to the Bank Act. I suspect he is hoping to hold that off until after the next election. However, that would mean we would have to go a few more months without knowing the financial guidelines for the next few years.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion carric		
Bill read the third time and passed.
Prisoners of War


Norman Augustine Cafik: I am not sure I have completely understood the hon. member. Am I correct in understanding that between now and six o'clock members will be prepared to pass this bill in all its stages? If so, I am prepared to call the bill now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Provided there could be some voluntary division of the time available so that a few words might be said by spokesmen for each of the parties, we would be prepared to do it now.
[ Translation]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, that proposal sounds very sensible to me. We sometimes waste time but, in this instance we want to save time. As for our party, we agree with proceeding the way the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) suggested, provided of course the time is well divided.


Mr. Speaker:: The House seems disposed to let the measure go through all stages between now and six o'clock provided there is some division of the time available to allow a representative of each party to make some contribution. If the bill is ready, perhaps it could be called as the next order of government business. Of course, the bill was introduced for first reading earlier this day so it would require unanimous consent at each stage before going further. In particular, it would require unanimous consent to change the motion so as to refer the bill to the committee of the whole House.
Is there unanimous consent to proceed with the bill at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: On a point or order, Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions with respect to the bill standing in the name of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) to amend the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act. This is a bill which has the support of all parties in the House. Would the acting government House leader be prepared to undertake to go ahead with this bill on Friday, the next government day? We would undertake in turn to deal with the measure in all three stages. The hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and others have been pressing for this bill for a long time and we are prepared to give it three readings-


Some hon. Members:: Now!


Walter David Baker: Members on the government benches say "Now!". I presume the minister is ready to proceed. In that case we too are ready to proceed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion, then, will be presented accordingly by unanimous consent.


COMPENSATION FOR FORMER PRISONERS OF WAR
Daniel Joseph MacDonald: that Bill C-27, to amend the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act, be read the second time.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today on a bill designed to improve the lot of members of the armed forces who were prisoners of war during the First world war and others who were later evaders in enemy or enemy occupied territory. The House will agree that Canada owes a debt of gratitude to the men and women who answered the call of their country and served so gallantly for the preservation of our freedom.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 1, 1978
Prisoners of War


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Canada's legislation for pension benefits and other services for our veteran population ranks among the best in the world.
It gives me a great deal of personal satisfaction to speak on a bill to amend the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act. The bill will affect compensation paid to about 200 veterans who were prisoners of war during the first world war and about 100 "evaders"-persons who were in enemy or enemy-occupied territory and evaded capture. These evaders were, in general, members of the RCAF who were shot down during the second world war and avoided capture after reaching the ground. Also affected by the bill are a number of veterans who had become prisoners of war and who escaped from their captors.
This measure, the provisions of which are retroactive to April 1, 1976, will amend the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act to provide compensation for former prisoners of war of the first world war and evaders and escapees under the same basic terms and conditions as for second world war prisoners of war of another power. Under the present legislation, Mr. Speaker, only the time actually spent as a prisoner of war may be counted toward computation of POW compensation. Some prisoners escaped and were recaptured, as I said before; others managed to evade capture and eventually reached allied lines or were able to return to the United Kingdom.
It is estimated, however, that there may be as many as 75 cases where an escapee's rate of compensation would be increased if the time between escape and recapture, or escape and eventual reporting to his own or allied force, could be counted as prisoner of war time. There are now about 200 surviving members of the armed forces who evaded capture by the enemy, and it is estimated half of this number evaded the enemy for three months or more.
Members will recall that in 1971 the Pension Act was amended to provide special benefits to the equivalent of a minimum 50 per cent pension to former prisoners of war of the Japanese because of the long-term after effects they suffered as a result of their imprisonment.
Four years later the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act was passed. This act provides benefits on a sliding scale to former prisoners of war of other powers during the second world war and other later conflicts. It also upgraded the benefits for those who were POWs of the Japanese.
There can be no doubt that conditions in German prisoner of war camps 60 years ago were very primitive indeed- conditions and experiences that do not relate to any other civilized kind of incarceration. This group of about 200 first world war prisoners of war, whose average age is about 82, probably suffered from malnutrition and deprivation to an extent at least equivalent to their second world war counterparts.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the measures proposed in this bill will be welcomed by every member of the House as further

evidence of Canada's awareness of the special contribution made by our veterans to our country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to pay special tribute to all those who have been involved in the studies which led to this bill: the veterans' organizations, the members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, other members of this House and officials of the Canadian Pension Commission.


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, today, as a result of the introduction of these amendments to the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act, we are taking another small step in achieving the recognition due and commitment to another small segment of our veterans population. In this case we are recognizing, albeit it some 60 years late, the effects of incarceration on first world war prisoners, as well as escapees and evaders during the second world war, because of the suffering and dangers to which they were exposed. As a result of avoiding capture they experienced effects in some cases equal to the danger to their lives, which they offered Canada at the call of our government, a call to their patriotism as the youth of our country.
While I feel it is my duty, and I do so without reservation, to commend the minister for listening to the plea of veterans organizations, the veterans themselves who were caught in this situation, and most members of the House of Commons who made a plea to bring in this bill which will overcome another part of the faith that we want to restore in the veterans of Canada as to what Canada's commitment is to them. 1 hope that even with the introduction of this bill, which will correct another glaring inequity in the veterans charter, hon. members will remember we should not feel too smug about what we have accomplished, if indeed it is an accomplishment. Perhaps it should be better described as giving ourselves relief from guilt complex; it is a relief to our conscience because we waited so long to recognize that incarceration in POW camps in the first world war also had serious effects on the lives of those who served and denied them the advantage of opportunity back in that great country of Canada at the same level as those who returned unharmed.
I welcome the fact, too, that those within the department of the minister have had the compassion to make the effective date of compensation retroactive to the original date of bill C-292, April 1976, which is only fair and decent. In some cases this will amount to some financial relief to those veterans who, on a small pension, are faced with the effects of a strangling inflation which is so difficult to cope with these days.
In the case of veterans who fall in the 10 per cent to 20 per cent category, this amendment should mean that they will receive, because of the retroactivity, between $1,300 and $2,600. Perhaps this will take away some of the sting of bitterness which they feel towards politicians as a whole, and as they wonder why all of a sudden we can find the insignifi-
March 1, 1978

cant sum of some $200,000 to $350,000 to provide a bit of extra comfort for the few who are left, probably by this time numbering below 200.
The first world war veteran is of the average age of some 83 years. According to statistics 1 gathered, in 1976 there were some 12,404 first world war veterans receiving disability pension. In 1977 this dropped by 1,500 because many of them passed away. This means we are losing some 15 per cent of our first world war veterans each year.
Based on these figures it is natural to assume that the known 200 prisoners of war probably number now somewhere around 150. It is tragic that the 50 or so who have passed away could not have been afforded a little bit of the financial comfort they might have enjoyed had it not been for our procrastination.
One of the small advantages that will result from this bill is that it will bring some of the first world war widows up to the 48 per cent category which will provide them with a widow's pension. Even though there will be few, this is one small advantage of this bill.
This brings up another point and gives us the opportunity of referring to the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, a recommendation that was accepted unanimously as a result of the Hermann Report which brought about the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act. Let me quote that recommendation:
That because the difference in widows benefits for those whose husbands were pensioned above and below 48 per cent is too extreme, the widows of those pensioned below 48 per cent should be awarded a pension that is the same percentage of the widows pension as the assessment of her deceased husband's disability, including any additional compensation awarded as a result of this study.
This means that compensation of 10 per cent, 15 per cent or 20 per cent, depending on the period of incarceration, would be added to the amount of pension payable under the Pension Act on account of pensionable disability, to a maximum total of 100 per cent; and that escapees and evaders should also be considered, which they now are.
We really could have commended the minister and his government to a far greater extent, at a time when they could use a little praise, if they had accepted the very important and vital recommendation to amend the Pension Act to award widows' pensions to those who at present cannot qualify because of the fact that their veteran husbands died when in receipt of a disability pension of less than 48 per cent. It is stated in the recommendation, and I think it is worthwhile putting on the record:
Your Committee also recommends to the House that consideration be given to amending the Pension Act to provide that a widow's pension be awarded on a sliding scale as follows:
When at the time of death of the prisoner he was, or would have been, in
receipt of a pension assessed at 47 per cent or less, that pension be paid to the
widow in double proportion to the assessed degree of the pensioner's disability
as it relates to the basic pension granted to widows.
I had hoped that the minister, who agrees with this recommendation, would include this in the bill. At the present time a full widow's pension is paid when the pensioner's death was attributable to, or was incurred during, wartime military ser-
Prisoners of War
vice, or, in the case of peacetime forces, if it arose out of, or was directly connected with, service, or when the pensioner's disability was assessed at 48 per cent or more at the time of death. Because 100 per cent of the widow's pension is payable when the disability pension was paid at a 50 per cent rate, the effect of this would be that a double proportion would be payable if the disability was assessed at a lesser rate. For example, if the veteran who died was receiving 40 per cent, his widow would receive double that, or 80 per cent. The minister agreed with this. It is unfortunate that he could not convince cabinet.
The inequity with regard to the widows of veterans who died receiving less than 48 per cent condemns anything which is right in society. Either those responsible are not aware of this absolute discrimination, or they do not care. It is a condemnation of any agency commissioned by parliament, whether it is responsible for studying equality or the status of women, human rights and civil liberties, or any other government agency responsible for the welfare of Canadians.
How in the name of all that is humane and decent can the following be rationalized? A married disability pensioner is entitled to $372.93, at the rate of 48 per cent. Upon his death his widow is deemed to need and receives $447.53. If that veteran was receiving $37.28 less, or 1 per cent less, she is deemed to need $335.65. When he dies, and unless his death is attributable to war service, his widow receives nothing. Thus, she is relegated to the mercy of the welfare system in the province where she lives.
This is particularly unfair in the case of World War I veterans. In a great number of cases, their widows spent most of their years caring for their husbands. It is just not right. Also it is difficult to reconcile this when compared to the fact that the wife of a veteran recipient of war veterans allowance is protected after her husband's death. She receives the married rate of $502 per month for a year, and then reverts to the single rate of $300 per month.
I hope the minister can convince cabinet that something must be done. World War I veterans are now 83 years of age, and World War II veterans range between the ages of 60 and 63. After the bill is passed, World War I veterans who were prisoners of war will have to apply. The facts should be pointed out to them in a note, in order for them to take advantage of anything which exists under the act.
In 1973 it was agreed that the basic rate of pension would be equated to the five lowest categories in the public service. We agreed that it should be done on a wage indexing basis, yet it was done on a cost of living indexing basis. That caused veterans to fall behind. This creates concern among veterans and I hope the minister will give it serious consideration.
At the present time a veteran who is receiving a 90 per cent disability pension and is also entitled to the 20 per cent rate increase would lose 10 per cent because his rate would exceed 100 per cent. Something should be included in the act to allow him to receive the full benefit of the 20 per cent.

March 1, 1978
Prisoners of War
There are many items which should be dealt with when the estimates appear before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. I hope the suggestions I have outlined will be taken into consideration. My party appreciates the compassion of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, as well as his department. The department is continuing to study the cases of veterans and their war service. Even though we perhaps feel embarrassed, have a good Pension Act and a good veterans' charter, we should not rest. Agreement was reached to put this bill through all stages today. That is indicative of how the House of Commons feels toward the veterans of our country.
Veterans made this country great. That is a fact which seems to be forgotten too often. We must remember the dedication, the service and the sacrifice made by the youth of 1914-17, 1939-45, and at the time of the Korean War. I hope this bill will be put through, and that World War I veterans, escapees and evaders will receive the benefits they are entitled to as quickly as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I very warmly welcome the introduction of Bill C-27. We have indicated our approval by pointing out that we are prepared for the bill to be put through all remaining stages this afternoon. If perchance we have not reached that point by six o'clock, I hope Your Honour will not see the clock until all necessary deliberations with respect to this bill have been completed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As has been pointed out on quite a few occasions, the number of prisoners of war veterans of World War I who are still with us is not very great. Probably they amount to about 200. That means they are scattered all over Canada.
The day after it reached the media that this legislation would be brought in, one of these veterans, who was a prisoner of war in World War I, came to Parliament Hill. He saw me in the rotunda. I believe he went to see the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), as well as the hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald). This gentleman happens to be just at the average age which has been mentioned, 82. When I looked at him, I realized he looked as young as I do. He said that of course the extra dollars would be useful to him, and that he was glad to know the money would be forthcoming. But what meant the most to him was the recognition which was being accorded, even though it was more than 60 years after the time he was a prisoner of war in German prison camps during World War I.
I have received two letters from other parts of the country since it became clear that this legislation would be put through. In both cases the same message appeared: they are glad to get the money, but what really helps is the recognition which is now being accorded. Therefore, we are happy to give

our support to this bill and to see to it that it is passed this afternoon.
I hope I can be forgiven for saying that this bill should not have been necessary at all. These provisions should have been contained in Bill C-92 which was brought before the House in March and April of 1976. As the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe pointed out, the recommendations of the Hermann Commission and the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs referred to all Canadian veterans who had been prisoners of war, and not just those who had been prisoners of war during World War II. But when the government brought in the bill, it was narrowed.
Also, the escapers and the evaders were mentioned in the Hermann report and also in the report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, so they should have been dealt with then. It is unfortunate that some who might have gained by this legislation had they been included in the original bil 1 have passed on, but at any rate it is good we are doing it now.
Like the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe, I welcome the fact that the same effective date which was in bill C-92 of 1976 is being retained in this legislation, which means that a World War I veteran who was a prisoner of war, whenever he applies, can pick up the compensation that is coming to him retroactive to April 1, 1976.
We are glad that all of the other provisions apply. Some of those provisions could be improved for the whole group, and the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe mentioned one or two of them. There is also the question of whether the rates might be increased, and there are questions that can be raised about some categories still not included.
The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) the other day had a motion in which he expressed the hope that some of those from allied forces who were prisoners of war in World War I or World War II and who are now in Canada might have been included. There is also the case of a group of priests who were the victims of enemy action in the Atlantic during World War II and found themselves spending the rest of the war in a POW camp in Europe and who ministered greatly and effectively to the enlisted personnel who were in that camp. There are those of the prisoners of war associations in this country who feel that they should be considered as well. Unfortunately, they are not covered in this bill, but there is a motion on the order paper for the reference of the annual report of the Department of Veterans Affairs to our committee, so that when we do get that reference before us, we can discuss those matters as well.
So far as this legislation is concerned, even though it is two years late we welcome it and we are very happy to put it through all stages this afternoon.
The hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe pointed out that there are certain facts that should be made known to those who will apply for this compensation. Let it be remembered that if there are such veterans who are receiving the war veterans allowance because their other benefits do not
March 1, 1978

bring them up to the ceiling set in that act, the way that act reads, what they get as prisoners of war compensation will come off their war veterans allowance. This means that though they may feel it is better to have something that is recognition rather than a form of welfare, we should be taking another look at the means test provisions in the War Veterans Allowance Act.
The other two things 1 want to say have been said very effectively by my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Elumber-St. George's-St. Barbe, but he and I, as well as others, feel that we cannot fail to emphasize these points every time there is an opportunity to do so. The question of the widow in the case where the veteran's pension was less than 48 per cent is not foreign to the whole subject matter that is before us because it was dealt with in the Hermann report and it was part of the recommendation that the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs made to the House. The hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe has read portions of that recommendation.
I still feel, as do many people in this country, that it is unthinkable that a woman who was married to a veteran on a 48 per cent pension can get the full widow's pension if her husband dies, but another woman married to a veteran on a 47 per cent pension gets nothing after the veteran dies. Surely the idea of at least a pro rata pension, which is what our recommendation called for, must be considered. We shall deal with this issue when we get to committee on the annual report of the department and we shall deal with it when we have the estimates before the committee, for this issue simply cannot be forgotten. As I say, that is part of the whole matter that was raised in the Hermann report.
The other issue raised by my friend from Newfoundland is still with us very strongly, namely, that the understanding of 1973 has, in our view, not been carried forward in that the basic rate of the war disability pension has not been retained at the level of the average take home pay of the five categories in the public service which were designated that year. This too we can deal with when we are in committee on the various items that have been referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
I can say to you, sir, and to the minister and the government, that these issues cannot be side-tracked. There are still other matters that relate to veterans. Once we have dealt with World War I prisoners of war, there are two other main issues, the ones we are talking about this afternoon, namely the position of the widow whose veteran husband's pension was below 48 per cent, and the basic rate of the war disability pension itself. There is no doubt in my friend's mind or mine where the minister's heart is with respect to this. We are satisfied that he is with us and we sympathize with him because of the trouble he has with his tight-fisted colleagues in the cabinet. I hope he looks upon our keeping at him on these issues as being a case of supporting him in what must be done for the veterans of this country.
So, Mr. Speaker, there are these items of unfinished business. We shall keep at them. But so far as Bill C-27 is
Prisoners of War
concerned, we welcome it and we are prepared to see it passed through all stages this afternoon.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Before recognizing the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) is it agreed that, because of the disposition of the House to proceed through all stages of the bill this afternoon, I do not see the clock until we have adopted the bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) for this bill designed to improve the lot of members of the Armed Forces who were prisoners of war during the first world war and others who were later evaders in enemy or enemy occupied territory.
Of course, this bill will affect only about 300 people, which is not very many. However, Mr. Speaker, I hasten to add that we members of the Social Credit Party of Canada warmly welcome the provisions of this bill. There is no doubt that ex-prisoners of war deserve gratitude and respect from people all over the country. In light of the gradual erosion of the real value of the benefits now paid by the federal government to this category of citizens, the passing of this measure will undoubtedly help them. Mr. Speaker, we cannot ignore the needs of veterans who just like us have to face increases in the cost of living and all kinds of expenses. I sincerely think that it is our duty to ensure that this bill which has just been introduced by the Minister of Veterans Affairs is passed this afternoon as quickly as possible.
I am all the more aware that it has become urgent to welcome the representations made by these ex-prisoners of war that they have been very badly treated and that they were victims of atrocities. As stated by the minister in his speech, these few hundreds of prisoners of war of the first world war who are 82 on the average have probably suffered from malnutrition and deprivation as much as if not more than those of the second world war. In fact, do the effects of such imprisonment not stay with you for the rest of your life? These prisoners of war, who for the most part were volunteers, had to leave their home to fight. They accepted to run all sorts of risks and even to die if necessary to defend their country. In any case, the minister proved this afternoon that the government has considered their problem and that they are entitled to be heard and even to get what they have been seeking for a long time.
Before closing, I would like to urge the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) to reconsider his decision of October 26 last, namely that the federal government would not recommend to Parliament that the basic rate of disability pensions be increased for all veterans unable to work.
In June 1973, the House passed a bill which aimed at amending the legislation concerning veterans' pensions. Under this bill, the federal government promised that disability pensions for veterans would achieve parity with the wages earned

March 1, 1978
Prisoners of War
by a group of non-specialized workers within the public service of Canada. As you certainly know, Mr. Speaker, a 7.2 per cent increase was granted on January 1 in view of the consumer price index increase. In spite of this, the basic rate is still $240 less than the average yearly wages of the non-specialized employee group of the public service of Canada after deduction of all income tax.
In my humble opinion, it would be an exaggeration to suggest that the present Canadian legislation for veterans is the best in the world if we consider that in the United States, the compensation rate for 100 percent disability was $707 a month, or $8,484 a year, on January 1, 1977, which virtually means that an American veteran with 100 per cent disability received $1,805 more a year than a Canadian veteran. This shows that the American legislation gives a basic compensation guarantee of 25 per cent more than the disability pension granted to Canadian veterans.
Mr. Speaker, all I want is for those people to live happy lives. I have asked the minister to consider also the category of veterans of the second world war who must also pay more for what they buy in view of current inflation.
I hope in closing that the Minister of Veterans Affairs will examine this matter and introduce a bill as soon as possible to help the veterans, like he has done this afternoon.


Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, this is a good day upon which to put this bill through. I believe it is St. David's day. I have no hesitation whatsoever in supporting this bill which has been introduced by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald). We see today that when good men of goodwill want to work together, they can work together for
the good of those who are in need. An example which all of us can follow is being set. I commend the minister and hon. members in all parties who are co-operating in getting this bill through all stages. I trust that the minister will receive the necessary support from the cabinet for even further amendments to veterans legislation in the very near future.
That is all I have to say. I have not had equal time, just sufficient time.


Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to make a few remarks about these amendments to the Compensation for Former Prisoners of War Act. I congratulate and commend the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) for bringing in these amendments which provide benefits for veterans and escapees of World War I as well as those of World War II. I thank all hon. members for their support of my motion in this House on February 10 asking the minister to consider in the future that this bill apply to all Canadian citizens who were prisoners of war or escapees in World War I and World War II.
I think today when human rights acts are being proclaimed we should do everything we can to extend fair and equal treatment to all Canadian citizens. If possible, I urge the minister in the very near future to bring in additional amendments to include all Canadian citizens who were prisoners of war or escapees in World War I and World War II.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being after six o'clock this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 6.08 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.


END OF VOLUME III