1979-02-16

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the vast mineral discoveries made in northern Saskatchewan, which will require railway transit construction if the fabulous potential for Canada is to be attained, the Canadian National Railways should proceed without further delay to give consideration, in the national interest, to commencing construction of a railroad into these areas, to Lac La Ronge and 100 miles north with the railhead, of course, being in the city of Prince Albert.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion for debate at this time, pursuant to Standing Order 43, would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LOCATION OF CENTRE FOR OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity having to do with the implementation of the Centre for Occupational Health and Safety.
Given the fact that the best medical and scientific expertise in occupational health and safety is available in the city of Hamilton, particularly at McMaster University, and given the fact that Hamilton, the industrial heartland of the country, is now, I understand, fourth on the short list, I ask leave to move,
seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski):
That the government, in the national interest, gives serious consideration to the establishment of the centre in the city of Hamilton because of the obvious industrial environment and available expertise.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will realize that this is a direct representation on behalf of his own constituency. As such, I am sure he will agree that that is not the purpose of the provisions of Standing Order 43.


CALL FOR PETRO-CANADA TO BE SOLE AGENCY FOR IMPORTING OIL-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the president of Imperial Oil directly snubbed the twofold request by the Government of Canada that no diversion of Venezuelan oil destined for Canada should take place, and that Imperial Oil establish direct contact with the Venezuelan government rather than operating through its parent, Exxon corporation, in the United States.
This naive move by the Government of Canada and the arrogant rejection of Canadian sovereignty by Imperial Oil are unacceptable. I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House asserts that the diversion of Venezuelan oil by the Exxon corporation is not acceptable to the Parliament of Canada and that the government establish immediately Petro-Canada as the sole agency for importing offshore oil into our country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

February 16, 1979


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Repeatedly over the past 2Vi years I have asked the government for a clear indication of whether, and when, the Department of Public Works will be put on a revenue dependent basis so as to cut down on excessive spending by departments. Since the government has continually given vague support, but no substance, to the idea despite the recommendations of the other place and the opposition and a history of studies going back to the Glassco commission, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That the Minister of Public Works make a statement on motions indicating whether the government intends to adopt the "user pays" principle of financing public works, so that the House may have a dear sense of where the government is moving on this issue before it has to deal with yet another set of estimates.


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction of such a motion for debate at this time requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker,
I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to present a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. Because of the backbreaking rate of inflation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith):
That the government forthwith bring in legislation to provide an amending formula to the basic rate of pension for disabled veterans so that the basic rate would be adjusted to increases in the pay of the five selected categories of public service workers, thereby affording them a minimum insurance against inflation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Yuri Shymko (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that almost $10 million are raked off every year by the Soviet government from estates of Canadians with relatives in the U.S.S.R., most of it from the disposition of capital from Canadian properties and mortgages, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Parker):
That this government negotiate with the government of the U.S.S.R. full compensation for any properties formerly owned by Canadians and annexed by the allied Soviet government during and after World War II, and also that any past and future estates left by Soviet citizens be transferred to their surviving relatives in Canada, with appropriate legislation preventing Soviet expropriation by means of forgery, duress and excessive overcharging of 45 per cent of Canadian estates left to surviving relatives on their territory.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member will realize, in rereading his motion, that I really cannot put the question unless there is some attempt in the preamble to establish urgency. It is not sufficient that it be an important matter, which this is; it must have some urgency. Since there does not seem to be an element of that urgency, I think I ought not to use this Standing Order to entertain this kind of motion.


PROTEST AGAINST PROPOSED INCREASE IN SUBSCRIPTION PRICE OF &quot;HANSARD&quot;-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), I move:
That this House notes with regret the decision of the Department of Supply and Services to raise the Hansard subscription price from the present rate of $3 per session to $65, and therefore expresses its view that the House of Commons itself should take over the sending out of Hansard and should keep the subscription price within a reasonable range so that Canadians will be encouraged to receive and read the actual record of what goes on in parliament.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: No.
February 16, 1979____________________COMMONS DEBATES______________________________________3301
Oral Questions
[DOT] (ins)	ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


STANDING ORDERS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask for the consent of the House to move a motion to provide for a provisional change in the Standing Orders. I would not expect that consent to be given today; however, I hope the motion will form the basis of discussions between my House leader and the government House leader because of the assistance and co-operation I have received from my House leader.
With your consent, Mr. Speaker, I will move the following motion:
That the Standing Orders be amended by adding, for the remainder of the present session, the following:
40A(1) At six o'clock, on any Monday, Tuesday or Thursday, Mr. Speaker may deem that a motion, "that grievances be noted", has been made and seconded, whereupon such motions shall be debatable for one hour.
(2)	No member shall be recognized by Mr. Speaker to raise a grievance unless notice of the grievance to be raised has been given to Mr. Speaker by 4 p.m.
(3)	The member raising the grievance may speak for not more than five minutes. A minister of the Crown, or a parliamentary secretary speaking on behalf of a minister, or a member directly involved in the grievance raised, if he wishes to do so, may speak for not more than five minutes.
(4)	When it is provided in any Standing Order-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


James Aloysius McGrath: I have two more paragraphs, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are in some difficulty by virtue of the very terms of my ruling of a couple of days ago, to which I know the hon. member is directing himself. In my ruling I did indicate that this Standing Order should not be used for procedural matters. In another part of the ruling I indicated that I would welcome any initiative by members of the House to establish a grievance procedure which might improve on the present one.
For the moment, I think I have to stick with the ruling that we should not use this Standing Order to accomplish that purpose; but I certainly hope that further discussions will take place along the lines of the motion now put together by the hon. member, to see whether or not the House might want to take further action in respect of it. I do not think I can be inconsistent in respect of my ruling in allowing him to put his motion in these terms pursuant to this Standing Order.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you can tell me how I can move it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: That is your problem.


PARTIES TO CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF VENEZUELAN OIL
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I should like to remind him of the assurance he gave to the hon. member for Assiniboia earlier this month in which he said, among other things, that Venezuela has been our major supplier, supplying some 40 per cent of our imports. He said he had received personal assurances from Venezuela that those supplies would continue to Canada. Yesterday, the minister also referred to these assurances.
I should like to ask him whether, when he made that statement in the House earlier this month, he knew that the company contracting for these supplies from Venezuela was Exxon, rather than a Canadian company such as Imperial Oil.


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, when I was down in Venezuela I raised this matter with the head of Petroleos de Venezuela, the national oil company of Venezuela, and we discussed the contracting relationships which govern the sale of Venezuelan crude to Canada. They pointed out to me that the contractual relationship was with Exxon International, but that they would prefer to deal directly with a Canadian company.
When I got back to Canada I reported to Mr. Armstrong my discussions with Petroleos de Venezuela and the fact that 1 had received assurances of 200,000 barrels a day. Knowing that Imperial Oil of Canada sources virtually 100 per cent Venezuela, I made it clear to him that I wanted him to establish a direct contracting relationship with Petroleos de Venezuela. I put that request to him, for reasons of public policy, in a letter that was sent to him in January.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not know what answer the minister received, but I can guess. Perhaps I had better ask him whether he received a response from Mr. Armstrong and, if he did not receive a response, what he did about it.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated in answers in the House that I have had a number of discussions with Mr. Armstrong. So far they have not been satisfactory to the government. Mr. Armstrong has not yet been able to give me evidence that Imperial Oil has secured permission from its parent corporation to deal directly with Petroleos de Venezuela and to enter into contracting relationships with that corporation.
Mr. Armstrong told me that he raised this matter with his parent company, with Exxon. He indicated that he is hopeful he will be in a position to reply to me within a short period of time, but he has given no specific date. I have made it very

February 16, 1979
Oral Questions
clear to Mr. Armstrong that Canada regards this as a very important matter. I have indicated to him that the exchanges involved which his company is seeking are matters we will have to review against this policy background. Quite clearly, it is a lever; it provides the government with clout in this particular situation and I intend that we should use that clout.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in view of the uncertainty the minister encountered, in view of the vital concern of the people of Nova Scotia and the maritimes regarding these supplies, and their natural anxiety, and in view of the still doubtful outlook particularly after the first quarter, why did the minister feel he was discharging his duties to the House and to the people in that part of Canada by simply standing up and giving very bland assurances calculated to give the impression that the supplies of oil from Venezuela would continue to flow into eastern Canada in the normal manner? In view of what the minister has told us today, how can he justify having taken this casual, complacent position before the House?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the House a moment ago, I had reason to believe that Venezuela wanted to deal directly with Canada. I had no reason to believe that Exxon International would divert supplies from Venezuela, supplies which were destined for Canada.


Mr. Lawrence:: You knew.


Alastair William Gillespie: As recently as a few days ago I had no reason to believe that that would be done, that they would put western hemisphere crude oil on a worldwide allocation basis. After all, other international companies have not adopted that practice. As I understand it from information I have received, other international companies have allocated only on the basis of Middle Eastern crude oil, but they have not cut back on their western hemisphere crude oil. For example, there has been no allocation or reduction on the part of Shell. Shell Canada is dealing directly with Petroleos de Venezuela, the national oil company of Venezuela.
There has been no cutback between Gulf Canada and the supplies from Venezuela to Canada for Gulfs account, nor has there been any with respect to Texaco: I have been assured of that by the president of Texaco Canada. The situation in which we are dealing with Imperial is a different and unique one. Exxon and Imperial have dealt with this question of reallocation in a different manner than other international companies.
The second thing which is different about the situation is that Imperial sources come exclusively from Venezuela and none of the other companies' do. It is intolerable and unacceptable that our multinational corporations would intervene and decide that 25,000 barrels a day of crude oil, or roughly one-quarter of the crude oil supplies for this company, should be diverted to other markets. More particularly, I would have thought the hon. member for Halifax would have been equally

concerned about this since his area is more vulnerable than any other part of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: What a lot of huffery and puffery.


POSSIBILITY OF SUPPLYING EASTERN CANADA WITH WESTERN CANADIAN OIL
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The matter becomes more confusing as the minister ploughs along. Perhaps he could explain to the House what possible benefits will accrue to either the producing provinces which have surplus producibility, or to the Atlantic provinces which obviously need crude oil supplies, by the government's threat to block any further oil swaps by Imperial Oil Limited?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think we are in the fortunate position, as I have indicated in the House before, of having surplus producibility in western Canada. The government of Alberta has indicated it is prepared to approve additional liftings of a temporary nature to make up for shortages which are being felt by eastern Canadian refineries. That will be done through the displacement mechanism on a temporary basis. I would expect that these additional liftings in western Canada will be of benefit to and will look after eastern Canadians.
If the hon. member is asking about the threat in respect of Imperial Oil and the concern that might cause to customers in eastern Canada, my answer to him is that if Imperial Oil is not prepared to establish a direct relationship, then it will have to accept the consequences. This is its responsibility to its particular customers, with which it should be concerned. If, as it has said, it has this flexibility to deal worldwide, it should be able to look after them. If it cannot, we are prepared to authorize additional liftings from western Canada to its competitors, and I am sure its competitors will be very pleased to look after that market.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is a very stupid bargaining stance on the part of the federal government. Is the minister saying he is sure there will be sufficient supplies for the Atlantic provinces, either from Venezuela or from western Canada, to meet second quarter requirements and to build up their stocks for next winter?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I believe the answer, quite clearly, is yes. The Venezuelans have said they are prepared to continue these supplies to Canada. The problem is with Exxon, and I am surprised that the hon. member and his party do not yet understand that. They do not yet understand that and seem to be saying to themselves, "We will let Exxon solve our problems for us."
February 16, 1979


An hon. Member:: You said the problems were solved.


Alastair William Gillespie: We are not prepared to let Exxon solve our problems; we are going to solve our own problems.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, a month or so ago the minister said the problems were solved: he gave us all the assurances, and now he is backtracking, changing his position.


ESTABLISHMENT OF PETRO-CANADA AS EXCLUSIVE IMPORTER OF OIL
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to turn the minister's words right around. It is the Government of Canada that is saying Exxon is going to solve our problems; that is the whole negotiating stance of the government.
In view of the fact that the minister does not have to wait for that letter from Mr. Armstrong, since he got his answer from the press conference yesterday in which Mr. Armstrong flatly turned down the two requests-one that the corporation deal directly with Venezuela, and the other that they fully restore our quotas-in addition to which Mr. Armstrong said at his press conference that they are going to continue to deal with Exxon and not directly with the government of Venezuela, considering that Imperial Oil took that position yesterday and that Shell, Gulf or Texaco might take it next month or the month after that, will the government not recognize that this is the normal economic performance of the multionationals and, therefore, immediately establish the Canadian corporation, namely, PetroCan, as the exclusive importer of oil into this country?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, 1 have already indicated that a number of multinational corporations, especially the Canadian operators, are dealing directly with the national oil company of Venezuela and that they have established a commercial relationship. I hope and expect that Imperial will do the same thing.
PetroCan has also initiated discussions with Petroleos de Venezuela; it has already had a number of discussions in respect of the sourcing of crude for Canadians, more particularly for eastern Canadians who are affected by the shortage at the present time. I cannot as yet announce what the outcome of these discussions will be, but clearly Petro-Canada is in the field right now seeking a contracting relationship with Petroleos de Venezuela in the same way it is negotiating with Pemex, the national oil company of Mexico.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister, once again, in the first part of his answer-to which I listened with care- reasserted his faith that Exxon would do what the Government of Canada wants it to do. I do not know what the foundation of that faith is. The minister is like a man on the Titanic saying, just before the ship goes down, "Pass me another glass of sherry; everything is going to be fine."
Oral Questions


Mr. MacEachen:: What's wrong with beer?


John Edward Broadbent: There is no reason for us to believe that. Given the expressed desire of the government of Venezuela to deal directly on a government-to-government basis, which I confirmed as recently as this morning, and the need for Canadians in Atlantic Canada and Quebec to have an assured supply of oil in the future, 1 repeat, why does the government not make Petro-Canada the exclusive importer of oil into this country?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I believe that Petro-Canada has made enormous progress in the past three years and more particularly the past year.


John Edward Broadbent: Answer the question.


Alastair William Gillespie: I wonder, as the hon. member does, about the official opposition and why they would want to dismantle Petro-Canada. 1, like him, wonder why the Leader of the Opposition repeatedly says he would dismantle Petro-Canada and destroy this major policy instrument which is aimed at providing security of supply for Canadians.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows better than most that we would not have Petro-Canada unless the NDP had forced this government to create it in 1973. He knows better than most the reality of the discussions which took place at that time.
Since Canadians in Atlantic Canada and the province of Quebec do not want to be held up to ransom in the future by multinational companies if they continue to behave in the way these companies behave-I am not criticizing them on this basis, because they are out there to make profits, but if they are set up on a multinational basis they have no allegiance to this country-why does this government not give Petro-Canada the same kind of mandate as companies of its equivalence in Venezuela, Mexico and around the world have, namely, to protect the energy interests of its people?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what the Parliament of Canada and the Government of Canada has done. It has given Petro-Canada that mandate and that is why Petro-Canada is the negotiating instrument for the Government of Canada with Mexico. It is the sole negotiating instrument for 100,000 barrels per day which I hope will replace the equivalent amount that we had been receiving from Iran.
It is also true that Petro-Canada is within the top ten and that it is the second largest natural gas producer in the country.


John Edward Broadbent: Sit down.


Alastair William Gillespie: It is probably about number six in oil production. So in terms of security of supply it is very important. I believe there is another important reason, and that is that the creation of Petro-Canada will help to keep the multinationals honest.
3304

February 16, 1979
Oral Questions


MINISTER'S KNOWLEDGE OF OIL SHIPMENT DIVERSIONS
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, it is really hard to see how Petro-Canada or any other state oil company could assist in this mess which the government has nurtured in ten years of neglect.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: My supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Thank you, sir. I am sure that the minister can understand the feeling on the part of some of us that there is a very obvious contradiction between the private knowledge which the minister had about these diversions and the public face which he has put on in this House about his own actions relating to the supply of Venezuelan crude oil. The minister knows, or should have known, that Imperial Oil-


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


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Yes, I do, sir. Did the minister not appreciate that Imperial Oil was informed by Exxon in January, to the minister's knowledge and to the knowledge of the NEB, that there would be diversions, and that in actual fact a number of those diversions had to be approved by his own agency, his own department and the NEB? At that same time the minister was coming into this House and making public utterances that he had saved the situation by assuring us of Venezuelan supply. How many swaps in January and early February were approved by the NEB, not only for Imperial Oil but for all the eastern refineries?


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Right on.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is trying to suggest-


Allan Frederick Lawrence: That you knew; that is what I am suggesting.


Alastair William Gillespie: -that this had been developing for some period of time and that I was aware of the facts. The hon. member has obviously made a completely wrong inference.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: We know that you don't know the facts.


Alastair William Gillespie: The first time that I learned there would be a diversion of 25 per cent was last Thursday when a delegation from Imperial Oil came to my office. That was the first time the cutback of 25 per cent came to my attention.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, then how could the minister tell us that he and the NEB approved a replacement cargo as early as February 8, which was unloaded at the Dartmouth docks for the Imperial Oil refinery, when that approval would have to have been made many days before so that the arrange-

ments could be made? How could that possibly happen without the knowledge of the minister; and did not the minister then ask himself why that type of diversionary tactic, that type of replacement cargo, was needed?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is talking about two different things. There is the situation of a predictable shortage developing in eastern Canada as a result of the Iranian problem, when all production in that country ceased on December 26-because 20 per cent of the supply comes from Iran. That possibility, probability, problem was known to us and we were taking the necessary action to ensure that exchanges could move in to help out in that situation. What the hon. member is asking, if I understand him correctly, is, when did I know that there would be a 25 per cent reduction-


Allan Frederick Lawrence: When there was going to be a reduction.


Alastair William Gillespie: -or diversion on the part of Exxon. I am telling him that the first time I knew about it was when I talked to the Imperial Oil delegation last Thursday and they put some figures in front of me.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: You should have known.


EFFECT OF OIL SHORTAGE ON PRICE OF HOME HEATING FUEL
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I think the bottom line of this issue is whether or not people in eastern Canada will find it a little chilly next winter.
I would like to ask the minister what instruments he has in place and at his disposal to ensure that the almost totally unacceptable gap in the cost of electrical energy generated by oil does not get beyond the incomes of individuals in terms of coping with the cost. What assurances can the minister give the House that the high cost of the swapped oil, traded oil or replacement oil will not drive the cost of home heating fuel out of sight and out of the reach of the average person in eastern Canada?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the western Canada crude will be moving across Canada according to the one-price policy which has been established. As the hon. member knows, Canadians have the advantage of a lower price in international terms as a result of this government's action.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: I believe the hon. member had some other questions about swapping and I would be very pleased to hear them again.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, the unit cost per 1,000 kilowatt hours for energy in Charlottetown is 60.13, whereas in the rest of the country it is probably around 28 or 30. What assurances does the minister have that this swapped oil, this traded oil or replacement oil-both Iranian and Venezuelan-
February 16, 1979

will not result in the cost of home heating fuels and gasoline going beyond the capability of an already hard-pressed area economically? How will families be able to pay for fuel oil next winter? Will the costs be going up and, if so, by how much and when?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I answered a question about prices. 1 indicated that Canada had no control over international prices and that prices are established by the producing nations. We cannot affect that. What we can make sure of is that there is no rip-off by those who are importing. That is the role of the Petroleum Compensation Board. There is no way that additional or high spot prices which may have been paid to replace Venezuelan crude at regular prices will be swept in for oil import compensation purposes, establishing a higher rate. We also indicated that CS1P, which is the agency of the Economic Council, will be asked to assist in the monitoring of this possible problem.
I might also indicate to the House, because of the obvious interest in this question, that we will be giving notice today of a bill, an energy supplies emergency act, which will be designed to provide the power to the government so that it can act with authority in the event of any necessity to allocate crude oil supplies or to allocate product. At the moment this seems remote, but if necessary it could implement a rationing program as well. Notice will be given today.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Ian Watson (Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
His colleague the Minister of Justice notified the Quebec government on January 26 that $62 million would be available for public transit in Quebec.
Would he confirm that those funds could be earmarked for a feasibility study on the construction of a bus lane on the Mercier bridge. The purpose of that lane would be to provide quick access to public transit vehicles between Chateauguay, the metro station of Angrignon Park to Ville Lasalle and other points on Montreal island.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. member has been toying with that plan for a long time. It is obviously a very interesting project which should be considered by government authorities. However I remind the hon. member that the agreement of the provincial government is
Oral Questions
needed in the first place to carry out such a study and such a project.


INVOKING OF EXISTING LEGISLATION TO SOLVE OIL SHORTAGE PROBLEMS
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources?
In view of the fact that when this country was in a similar oil crisis in 1973, the present government which was in office at that time brought down the Petroleum Administration Act, committed itself to storing oil in eastern Canada and to set up the machinery whereby it could appoint an allocations committee to control imports and take that out of the hands of the multinational corporations, why has the minister not been using the powers he already has, rather than talking about some nebulous bill which he is going to bring in?
I want to ask him specifically why he has not set up an allocation committee, of which Petro-Canada would be a member, to take control of imports of oil and for dealing with Venezuela. The minister knows perfectly well that Imperial Oil cannot deal with Venezuela if Exxon tells it that it must not do so. When is the minister going to stop being simply a fall-guy for the oil industry and start acting in the interests of the people of Canada?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member referred to the Petroleum Administration Act. That is the act that gives the government of Canada the power to set prices. The hon. member also remembers, as I do, that the official opposition opposed passage of the Petroleum Administration Act. They did not want the Government of Canada to have that power. If they had been successful, Canada today would be paying world prices, not a price significantly below world prices to the advantage of consumers and industry throughout this country.
The hon. member also refers to the allocation powers we had under the emergency supply allocations act. He may also remember that in order to get passage of that important act we had to agree to a sunset clause which was the proposal of the opposition. It goes to show that a sunset clause is not always a very useful provision in an act, because that particular act which gave the power of allocation self-destructed over two years ago.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I do not need the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to tell me about the defects of the Tory party; I am aware of them. I am dealing with the defects of this government which has been in office for 16 years and which made commitments in 1973 and 1974 to give the people of Canada

February 16, 1979
Oral Questions
security of supply and has not been able to deliver; that is what I am dealing with.
I want to ask the minister two short questions. What have they done about their commitment to store oil in this country, particularly in the maritime provinces and Quebec, against the possibility of offshore oil being cut off?
I want to ask also why, when the minister was in Venezuela negotiating with the state oil trading company which has stated repeatedly it wants to deal on a government-to-govern-ment basis, he did not at that time arrange for an agreement between Petro-Canada and the state-owned oil company of Venezuela without having any intervention by the multinational corporations.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the question of oil storage is an important one. It involves more than Canada; it involves the mutual defence interests of Canada and the United States. The United States has shown an interest, through their strategic petroleum reserves program, in three sites in Canada, two in the Strait of Canso area and one in Newfoundland at Wabana. I believe that three submissions have gone forward on these very significant oil storage proposals.
I can assure the hon. member that as far as storage of oil in Canada is concerned, our storage facilities and our oil in storage right now meets our undertakings to the International Energy Agency.
As to the question of the contractual relationship between Petroleos de Venezuela and Petro-Canada, negotiations started at that time between the two companies. There were discussions with respect to supply and there have been more recent ones. A close working relationship has been established between the two corporations. As I indicated yesterday in an answer, they concern very important areas in the development of heavy oils in western Canada and the heavy oils of Venezuela. Without Petro-Canada it would be impossible, as far as I can see, for Canada to interface with the Venezuelan national oil company. Again the point has to be made that the Tories, who would dismantle and destroy Petro-Canada, have nothing to put in its place.


DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS TO TRANSPORT OIL TO MARITIMES
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister knows that Petro-Canada has not put one barrel of oil in place in Canada. This government has been in power for 16 years, and it knew that OPEC created a crisis.
I want to ask the minister how it is possible, in a country that has enough oil to meet the needs of all its citizens, that the government did not put in place long ago, particularly after OPEC, distribution systems that would get our oil to the maritimes, which we ought to be able to do.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the official opposition keeps playing the same

song. Obviously, they are trying to knock Petro-Canada, trying to put Petro-Canada down for their own party reasons.
I think they have misjudged the situation. They do not understand the security of oil supply question for Canada. Security of supply, the development of heavy oils, exploration in the High Arctic, the hon. member must know that over half of all the exploration in the High Arctic and the offshore last year was undertaken by Petro-Canada. They must know that had it not been for Petro-Canada, we would not have seen the great surge of activity in the heavy oils development of western Canada. These heavy oils will be important in the future for security of supply for Canada. That is also one of the reasons we can move, on a temporary basis, small quantities from western Canada to look after the eastern refineries' situation.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, we have not had an energy policy in this country since the days of the Diefenbaker government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I am asking the minister the question that every Canadian is asking today. In a country that is producing enough oil internally, domestically, to meet the needs of all Canadians, how is it possible that we do not have a distribution system in this country? After the crisis of OPEC, how is it possible that we are fooling around talking about Venezuela, Petro-Can and Exxon, when we produce all the oil we need in this country and we do not have a system to get it to the Canadian people?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think equal attention has to be given to both questions and answers.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I understand that since the hon. member gave up being the official critic on energy matters, he has not been able to inform himself of the energy situation in Canada. Perhaps he is not to be blamed for his question.
The hon. member made the astounding suggestion that we are producing enough oil to look after all of Canada and the only problem is distribution. I wish that were the case, but it is not. Canada is a net importer of oil. The hon. member does not seem to realize that. He does not seem to understand the security of supply questions facing this country.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my questioii is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate
February 16, 1979

Affairs. The Consumers' Association of Canada has been very critical, particularly of Loto Canada with regard to deceptive advertising they allege is taking place in Loto Canada respecting certain matters in connection with the allocation of funds, particularly television advertising, to the effect that the funds are going for amateur sport. The fact is that only $3.7 million of the $225 million goes into amateur sport. Has the minister's department been looking into that matter and what is the result of their investigation?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, my department did look into the ads of different lotteries last year and communicated with them. It brought to their attention some of the rules and regulations with regard to misleading and fraudulent advertising.
Loto Canada, by the way, did change its ads. I cannot recall right now what happened with some of the provincial lotteries. I am not aware of the recent allegations of the Consumers' Association of Canada, but I will be glad to look at them and refer them to our people who are investigating misleading and fraudulent advertising.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: When the minister is looking into these matters, will be also look into the question of whether, in terms of the return to a person buying a ticket from Loto Canada, that person is not being ripped off? The allegation of the Consumers' Association of Canada is that it is a very bad return on a person's money. Even in Las Vegas, at least 95 per cent of the money invested comes back to persons who buy tickets there.
Will the minister look into the whole question of whether there is a reasonable return, and the fact that people who think they will be winners is not the case for most people who invest in this kind of lottery?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, last week the hon. member for York West asked me some questions on a similar matter. I agreed to look at the lottery question from the consumer point of view. A unit has already been set up in my department to do that. I will refer to them the question put by the hon. member.


ACTION TAKEN BY COMBINES INVESTIGATION BRANCH IN CASES OF DECEPTIVE ADVERTISING
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The minister has power under the Combines Investigation Act to investigate and, indeed, lay charges in cases of proven deceptive advertising.
In light of the most recent charges by the Consumers' Association of Canada of deceptive and exploitive advertising, has this matter been referred to the combines investigation branch? Also, can he tell us why he or the combines investigation branch did not lay charges last year when it was discovered that Loto Canada was involved in deceptive advertising of its lottery?
Oral Questions


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I pointed out that last year we not only looked at Loto Canada but at all lotteries in Canada, provincial, regional, and so on. If I recall correctly, at that time there was no ruling or decision on the part of the people in the misleading advertising section; it was a grey area. We brought it to the attention of the various lotteries that they must conform with the law and not be misleading in any way. My recollection is that Loto Canada did, in fact, change its advertising to make it conform with the law. I do not know about the provincial lotteries; I will have to check into that. I received these new allegations only recently. I will have to talk to those in the misleading advertising section to see whether this is valid or not.


James Aloysius McGrath: Is there an investigation under way to measure the impact that lotteries in Canada are having on social, publicly-funded agencies such as United Appeal? It has been said that this represents a tax on the poor and that it is having an impact or effect on social agencies in this country which depend on public funding.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the initiative last week by the hon. member for York West, a unit was set up in my department to examine that. The hon. member has already sent us some material and I have been in touch with the voluntary organizations group. They are willing to co-operate with us in our studies. We are looking at lotteries from a consumer point of view and will report in due course.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State who said in the House, on February 14 last, with regard to the negotiation for the renewal of the five-year national program of subsidies to the teaching of the official languages that he was asking the provinces to be truly accountable to the citizens of their respective provinces.
I should like to ask the minister whether he did, in fact, make concessions because I thought, first of all, that he intended to ask the provinces to be accountable to the federal authorities and the Parliament of Canada who are called upon to vote funds of over a billion dollars for the next five-year period. Has the minister changed his position in this regard?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: No, Mr. Speaker, 1 do not believe I have changed my stand. There are two aspects to the negotiations with the provinces: first, we are insisting on accountability to the citizens of Canada, of every province, as the hon. member indicated so that we can assure the hon. member and the public that the funds spent by the Govern-

February 16, 1979
Oral Questions
ment of Canada and the provinces are in fact used for increasing the teaching of the minority language, the second language, or to make up for the additional expenditures, if any, incurred for an education system in both official languages.
In addition, and this is my second point, we told the provinces that we want to emphasize non formula rather than formula programs to better ensure that accountability, to prove that the funds are really used for the specific goals of the program.
We still insist, therefore, on accountability and not only to the federal government either. What I want is for the public to know what is being done with regard to the problem, and to know that those sums of money are being spent efficiently.


AIR TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
Elon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Now that the right hon. member has experienced, personally, at the Jeux Canada Games the dynamism, Canadianism and friendliness of the people of Brandon and western Manitoba, will he speak to his Minister of Transport and ask him to make the necessary arrangements to have urgently needed, regular jet service into the area, as he promised during the last election campaign in 1974?
Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do know that Brandon has an air service. I do not believe it is a jet service. I can understand the desire of people to have a more rapid service. I recall that for a period of a few years we discussed with the government of Manitoba a project called, I believe, Skyways which would have permitted cities in Manitoba and Saskatchewan to be linked. That fell through, as I recall it, because the government of Manitoba withdrew from the project.
This being said, I know the Minister of Transport is still interested in ensuring better service and in co-operating with provincial governments to this end. For my part, I would say to the hon. member who represents the area that he is quite right in referring to their friendliness and to their great community spirit, and I am surprised they would want to leave Brandon so rapidly. I think they should be happy to stay there and not increase their links with the outside world.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PUBLIC WORKS
Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. It concerns about 35 acres of land purchased south of London at the cost of some $600,000 to build a new prison there. That is an example of a very costly blunder which the people of Canada should know about.
Is the prison issue in London completely dead, and does the department intend to turn that land back to the Department of Public Works to salvage whatever they can out of it?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that about the time I made the announcement related to the changes in the building program, London was included among the institutions which were not going to be built, to realize the cost reductions envisaged as a result of the Prime Minister's announcement of August 1. The land has now been turned over to the Department of Public Works and is part of the inventory of that department.


Robert Elgin McKinley: My next question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. Can the hon. gentleman advise us what will be done with this land, and that the prison issue is indeed dead? The Solicitor General mentioned that it was because of cutbacks, but that was a convenient excuse because they realized after the municipal elections that it was a very unpopular move. What is going to be done with that property?


André Ouellet: I will report to the hon. member next week.


POINTS OF ORDER
Allan Frederick Lawrence: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As a result of the question period today, I believe I have a question of privilege relating to statements by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) which I firmly believe have misled the House as to the extent of his knowledge of when some of these events were known to him. I should like to take the opportunity now of giving you notice that I intend to raise that aspect of his remarks as a question of privilege at some future time, if I have your permission.


MR. BAKER (GRENVILLE-CARLETON)-ENERGY-INQUIRY WHETHER LEGISLATION FORTHCOMING
Walter David Baker: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with respect to an answer given me by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources during the question
February 16, 1979

period. It has to do with his failure to answer a question which is of importance to Canadians, and that is how, after 16 years in office, a country with our supplies should be faced with the position where it cannot supply energy to one part of it. It seems astonishing to most Canadians.
The minister in the course of his answer indicated he intended to give notice of a bill. I think the House should know whether that bill is drafted. If it is drafted, let us see it now. It is not unusual that a minister, if he regards a bill as important, should consult with relation to the terms and conditions of the bill. I think the minister should tell the House, in view of the urgency of the question, whether or not the bill is drafted, and if it is drafted I think he should stand and agree that it would be quite appropriate in these circumstances for all parties to see the bill so that it could be studied before it is dealt with.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I propose to put this bill on notice today. The bill is drafted. It will deal with the situation the country may eventually face and it will be available to members before the House is asked to deal with it.


MR. STEVENS-CANADIAN DOLLAR-REQUEST FOR REFERENCE TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker, Your Honour will recall that on February 1, in response to a question and a request put by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) for a special reference to the finance committee with respect to the falling dollar, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) assured us that the Bank Act reference was sufficient to hear not only the governor of the Bank of Canada on that question but any other witnesses. The deputy House leader went further and stated that if any further power was needed for a reference it would be forthcoming. Unfortunately the committee today voted against a hearing of any independent witnesses with respect to the currency matter. Therefore, I should like to ask the House leader whether we may now have the reference to the finance committee so that this serious matter of the falling dollar and the currency question may be rapidly dealt with by the finance committee without further delay.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: From what the hon. member has already stated, it is clear that the committee already has the power to deal with the question of the Canadian currency and the exchange rate. If the committee did not have that authority it would not have been able to hear the governor of the Bank of Canada and question him for several hours. So obviously the committee has already acted and heard evidence on the question of the exchange rate.
There is no deficiency in the powers of the committee; it is a decision, apparently, by the committee itself that it will not deal further with and call witnesses on this subject. I suggest to the hon. member that the remedy is not through a reference to the committee. The committee is master of its own proceedings and it can decide who it wishes to call as witnesses.
Point of Order-Mr. Nystrom


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Perhaps I inadvertently misled the House leader. In short, he missed my point. In today's committee the Liberals, voting en masse, voted through a motion which stated:
That subject to hearing evidence at its regular meeting on February 16 the committee proceed with "in camera" sessions for the purpose of preparing and submitting a report to the House of Commons on the subject matter of the Bank Act at the earliest possible date; furthermore that there be no interruption to this work other than priority attention that may have to be given to any other references which may be submitted to the committee from the House.
Specifically, what they overruled was a steering committee recommendation last night that further meetings be held for the purpose of hearing independent witnesses concerning the currency question, and that those meetings be held in the coming week. The Liberal members voted that down and said in effect, that until we get a further reference from the House of Commons no such meetings will be held. May we have the reference which has been requested?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: First, I shall not raise a point of order on the hon. member's coming before the House dealing with the proceedings of a committee before the committee has reported.
I may do that later because I believe we have frequently fallen into the trap of dealing in this House with matters before a committee. As I understand it, we deal with committee proceedings when a commmittee has reported. I am not raising a formal point of order today but I am serving notice to the hon. member that he had better get his act together and begin to observe the established rules of the House.
The committee itself has demonstrated that it has power to deal with the very subject matter with respect to which the hon. member asks for a reference. In the circumstances, a reference is unnecessary and redundant; it is up to the committee to decide on its own proceedings. It has done so, and it is not now for the House to tell the committee what to do when it has the authority to proceed as it wishes.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, Please. I think the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) was in order in the first point he raised as to whether a reference might be made. That has to do with the business of the House, and we always endeavour to permit questions by way of points of order as to House business which, of course, is a matter of order.
However, he also dealt with the business before a committee, with proceedings and votes in the committee, and I think in that respect the point that there is a limit as to how far we can go under the guise of discussing House business to interfere with the schedule and the work of any standing committee is well taken. I do not think we can pursue the matter any further on those grounds.


MR. NYSTROM-INQUIRY WHEN BILL C-24 TO BE DEBATED
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a similar point of order to raise with the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen). I notice that yesterday he did not

February 16, 1979
Committee Report
refer to Bill C-24, which deals with the Two-Price Wheat Act. When will we proceed with that, especially since the government, through order in council, has already stopped paying the money which was previously provided to millers as a bread subsidy? The government stopped paying the subsidy before Christmas through an order in council. When will it bring a bill forward to make legal what it has already done?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the hon. member wants the bill to be brought forward and is now indicating his support for it when it is brought forward.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: No.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If that is the indication, then I will be more sympathetic than I was yesterday about bringing the bill forward at an early date.


MR. BALDWIN-ALLEGED INACCURATE STATEMENT BY MINISTER OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, in response to a question today the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) made a very inaccurate statement. I attempted to get the floor to ask another question in order to deal with it. The minister said that the actions of the official opposition prevented the effective operation of energy allocation legislation. The fact is-and I was speaking for my party at the time-that a compromise was worked out between myself and the then minister. The drafting was the drafting of the government, and a clause was put into the bill to protect this country from the actions of a bumbling, stupid and inefficient government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That may have begun as something close to a point of order, but it certainly did not end as one.




[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments-Mr. Baldwin.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-41, respecting Loto Canada Inc.


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

Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On February 14 the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) issued a statement outside the House with respect to the tentative agreement reached between the Government of Canada and the government of the United States regarding fishing privileges on both the east and west coasts. Would the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) consider giving this House an opportunity to discuss that agreement so that it might assess historic rights and opportunities with respect to fishing versus future opportunities for fishing? This question was signally overlooked in the statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Could this matter be referred to a committee or discussed in the House?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will discuss this matter with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson). I believe the minister has been ready from day to day to deal with questions about the fisheries agreement, and I am sure that he would consider carefully what the hon. member has said about an opportunity to provide additional information. I will discuss it with the minister.


MR. BAKER (GRENVILLE-CARLETON)-REQUESTED REFERENCE TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I want to return to an earlier point of order. Perhaps I will raise a new one because I think that you, sir, as the first commoner should understand the extent of the undertaking which was given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in this House with respect to the ability of the committee and members of parliament to deal with the question which was raised again by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) and the understanding which I think the House had, not just with the Prime Minister but also with the deputy government House leader, who answered questions in the House of Commons with respect to the disposition of the government. When the Prime Minister and the deputy government House leader indicate that certain things will be done, I assume that is a representa-
February 16, 1979

tion that certain things will be done and that they ensure that they will be done. Otherwise, the committee system falls down.
Mr. Speaker, the reason for my raising this with you is that if the committee system does break down because undertakings are not carried out, we have no other recourse but to appeal to the Chair. We can, of course, wait until the committee reports, if the committee ever reports, but we think that Your Honour as first commoner should be interested in this matter.
I want to indicate the extent to which this government went.
I put a question on February 1, 1979 with respect to consultation. It was put to the deputy government House leader, who is the Minister of State (Multiculturalism) (Mr. Cafik). I asked whether there might be an undertaking to consult the chairman of the standing committee or the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) to see whether a reference might be made with regard to the matter I was dealing with. That referred to the exchange in which the Prime Minister was involved earlier in the day in which he said surely there would be no difficulty.
This is what the deputy government House leader said:
I feel confident that the steering committee and the full committee are capable of dealing with this question adequately, but if there is a disposition by the steering committee and the full committee that they do not have the capacity to deal with the questions which they want to bring forward, 1 am sure that the matter could be dealt with further. However, I have no doubt that they have full and complete power to deal with all the questions hon. members want to put to any witnesses which are relevant to banking in Canada.
The issue certainly was relevant to banking in Canada. The issue was the operation of the central bank. There was a clear representation and understanding that this matter would be dealt with by the steering committee, which it was, and that it would be dealt with so that there would be no obstruction to that examination in the full committee. That was the impression the Prime Minister wanted to leave in the House. In fact, he left the impression with the House that the government would not stand in the way of the full operation of that committee so that members who wanted to question the government and call other witnesses would be unfettered. That has not been lived up to.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). The difficulty with this point of order is the same as the difficulty with the point raised by his colleague, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens). We begin with a question regarding whether some undertaking was given in the House about sending something to a committee. That may be a question of order for this House, but if that has in any way been reversed or frustrated by an action of the committee, that is a matter within the competence of the committee which I cannot touch, at least not by any procedural means of which I am aware, unless the action of the committee was in itself some transgression of regular practices. Even then, putting it on solid procedural grounds here is very difficult; but the point is that if the hon. member maintains that some undertaking in the House was frustrated by an action of the committee, I do not see how the Chair in any way can intervene in the action of the committee so taken.
Order Paper Questions


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, 1 naturally have to abide by your ruling. I was not at the committee but people who were there have told me that the effect of it all was that only government members were able to put questions. I think there is a duty on the chairman of the committee, who is sitting in the House now, to stand up and tell the House whether he will make a specific request for a reference now, because it is obvious that the government is trying to play both sides of the street at the same time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have now gone quite far from a point of order in terms of the proceedings of the House. We are dealing, in the first place, with the business and the agenda of the committee and the right of the committee to be the master of its own proceedings. In any case, we have now gone beyond the bounds of any point of order in asking for a further dialogue between any member and the chairman of the committee outside the orbit of the question period. I think procedurally the matter has to conclude.


Mr. Paproski:: Another Liberal cover-up.


QUESTION ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 951.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


OFFICE IN WINNIPEG
Mr. Hare: Did the government establish an office in Winnipeg for the purpose of Manitoba representation in the Cabinet and, if so, at what cost?


Yvon Pinard: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
3312

S.O. 26-Mr. Broad bent


MOTIONS TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26
[Stage Direction]
February 16, 1979

Mr. Speaker:: I have received two notices pursuant to Standing Order 26, one from the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), and the other one from the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). The notice of the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East was received in my office first, and therefore I will call on him first; I will then call on the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the notice which was brought to your office earlier this day, and notwithstanding the undertaking by the government House leader with respect to the tabling of legislation today, may I suggest to you, sir, that the evidence is now overwhelming that unless urgent action is taken before the end of this quarter, the country will find itself in the situation whereby eastern provinces will face inevitable shortfalls in crude oil supplies to provincial refineries.
It is therefore essential that the House have the opportunity to discuss the contingent plans in their broadest aspects to meet this immediate crisis. Should you find, sir, that the usual criteria have been met, I would be prepared to proceed under the provisions of Standing Order 26 to move the adjournment of the ordinary business before the House so that the matter of the energy crisis in the supply of oil to eastern Canada can be dealt with.


CUTBACKS IN CANADIAN OIL SUPPLIES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), to move the adjournment of the House under the provisions of Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing an important and specific matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the substantial cutbacks in oil supply to Canadians as a result of the crisis in Iran and the action taken by multinational oil companies, particularly the refusal by the president of Imperial Oil late yesterday afternoon to comply with the two requests specifically made by the Government of Canada, namely, that Canada's full quota of oil from that company should be restored, and that this company should deal directly with Venezuela instead of with the parent Exxon Corporation. Such action maintains the shortages of needed oil and contravenes the sovereignty of Canada as expressed through the will of the Government of Canada.
Having moved that motion, I would only add what has been said about the government's intention to introduce the bill, which, in my judgment pertains not at all to the questions that I have raised about the disregard of the multinational corporations of the express wishes of the Government of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Both members, as I have indicated, gave me notice this morning of their intention to make this application pursuant to Standing Order 26, and I have to say to them that with my understanding of the purpose of Standing Order 26, as I have said on previous occasions, it always gives the Chair great difficulty to try to resolve these matters and in particular to define whether or not the particular problem which is addressed is of a sufficiently critical or emergent nature to warrant its consideration under this particular Standing Order.
In respect of this particular subject, I would at least be driven to the point of saying that since this matter involves something which is of national scope, it would certainly qualify under those circumstances; and indeed since all parties, under intensive questioning in the last day or two, particularly today, have indicated the very serious nature of the problem, both in the questions today and in the answers given by the minister as to the extent of the problem and the extent of the risk or threat that is involved if the failure to co-operate with the Canadian government's demands goes on, it would seem, on the face of it, to fit the use of the Standing Order.
In the end I have to come to a conclusion, as I have in the past, on two points. The first is that when this House debates Standing Order 26 motions it always debates something of immediate relevance, and I think it is important for the House to do that. Presumably that is the reason for the rule to be on the books, and I do not think we should interpret it so strictly that we can never take advantage of it, otherwise we should take it off the books.
The second point is that in a situation of this sort, when I am left in doubt, I do not see any reasons why I should not resolve that doubt in favour of those who are applying, and I say this freely, particularly so when more than one member makes the application at the same time and when they come from different political parties. This is again an indication of the seriousness with which this matter should be considered.
In these circumstances I am also impressed by answers of the minister which indicate that the government, too, wants it known that it takes this matter very seriously. That was the tenor of the answers given by the minister today. Therefore, it might be helpful to have it known that the House also does take the matter seriously, and therefore it would seem to me to be a useful application of Standing Order 26. That might give some indication of my intention on coming into the House today.
However, the Chair does face a problem in trying to decide whether the situation is an emergency or crisis, because that seems to be somewhat in dispute. I am in great difficulty because of the rapidly developing events. I think likely I would have taken advantage of the provisions of the Standing Order which would have allowed me to set aside some time on the next sitting day, which would have been Monday. I might also have tried to appeal to the House in that some of the strictures of the rule leave me in difficulty. I am not entitled to ask for a debate on whether I should invoke Standing Order 26, nor am I entitled to defer my decision, I have to give today. That is the
February 16, 1979

language of the Standing Order and I think it is appropriate language if the situation is critical. So I think the House understands what I was going to do on coming to the House today.
However, subparagraph (5) of Standing Order 26 provides, as I think hon. members know, that in making my decision under the Standing Order I must have regard to whether or not there would be an opportunity to debate the problem in some other way. If nothing else, the announcement by the minister that he intends to give the House notice of a bill having to do with this subject raises the possibility. I do not know and I have no way of knowing, but the House leader has given an indication, as has the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie), that notice of the bill will be given and that it relates to the subject.
Therefore, I am doing the only thing I can do under the circumstances, and that is to set the applications aside today. But I want to say that I do so-and I think the House should co-operate with me in this although I have no procedural way to ensure it-reserving the right of the two hon. members who have involved themselves in this important question to replace the motions, if they wish, at another sitting of the House, after the House has been able to acquaint itself, first, with the terms of the bill, the subject matter it addresses, the scope it provides for debate, and second, with when that debate will take place. These are the two questions we will want answered.
If the bill gives an opportunity to debate the subject in a fulsome way, I will set the applications aside, and therefore I think I should just leave it to the two members. I set them aside today because I have to-I cannot reserve them or defer them. I do that under those circumstances, and I leave it to the House to deal with once it has been better acquainted with the content of the bill and with the timing that that debate may have.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would say that that ruling is appropriate for the moment, and whether or not I believe that to be the case would not make any difference because that is the ruling. I just wanted you to know that I think it is appropriate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: What would be perhaps helpful, since the government House leader has indicated to me that the bill is now drafted and since it is important that the bill be proceeded with today, if he does not have it with him now or if there is any difficulty in handling it, I would like him to know, through you, sir, that we would be prepared to consent a little later, before or after the luncheon adjournment, to revert to introduction of bills so that the bill can be introduced and the kind of discussion you indicated would be appropriate could begin. I suppose that the best way to begin that discussion is to have the parties see the bill, either now, since it is ready, or as it is introduced later in the day.
I want you to know, sir, that we are prepared to agree to go back to introduction of bills later in the day, if that should be
S.O. 26-Mr. Broad bent
necessary, and waive notice, if that is necessary, if the government are prepared to go ahead as they said they were today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make it clear that we would agree to the waiving of any rules which might be necessary for introduction of this bill today. Perhaps we should reserve until we have seen the bill, but if it is a useful one we would be prepared to start the debate on second reading as well.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, dealing with the matter of Your Honour giving further consideration to this issue, I wonder if I could be so bold as to suggest, keeping in mind the mere fact the government has put legislation on the order paper, or will put it on by Monday, that this is no guarantee as to when the government will proceed with it. Any agreement reached ought to include proceeding with that legislation or allowing the emergency debate.
The entire question is not just the bill which the government will be bringing down giving them new powers, but the extent to which the government has failed to use the powers it already has. That is one of the reasons we want this debate as quickly as possible.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I notice the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) is still sitting there with his contented smile in the middle of this crisis. I am sure he will become excited one of these days. If he will not, perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) will give us some indication at this point, from the government's perspective, that it would be agreeable to bring forward the bill this afternoon, having had an indication from the opposition parties that we take the matter very seriously and would like prompt action. Would the Deputy Prime Minister agree to waiving the rules and bringing forward the bill so that we may have a look at it? In the same context on behalf of the government, would the Deputy Prime Minister state not only that the bill will be introduced soon, but that the debate on it will take place on Monday at the latest?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, earlier I indicated to the House that it was my intention to give notice of this bill today, and that in the normal course it would be given first reading on Monday. Hon. members have asked to see the bill today and whether we could begin its discussion. I do not think it would be reasonable to expect the House to begin the discussion of the bill today. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) suggested earlier that his party wanted to study it before dealing with it. I will investigate whether it will be possible to give it first reading today and have the bill made available.


Walter David Baker: Good.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Perhaps the terms of the bill are familiar to hon. members, but there is one difficulty. Yesterday, I

February 16, 1979
Government Organization
chaired a meeting which approved this bill and certain changes were made in cabinet committee. I am not sure whether the bill has been reprinted with the changes. If I find it has been, or it can be reprinted before the end of the day, I will consider asking for leave to give it first reading.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, January 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen (for Mr. Trudeau) that Bill C-35, respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, one of the main features of this bill deals with the new department of fisheries and the environment. I want to take this opportunity to speak on fisheries matters.
We have just seen a fine display by our fin-feathered friends across the House. Now 1 want to go into fishery policy in Canada and what are some of the problems. First I should like to point out what everybody already knows. The statistics I have already prove that we have a great growth rate today in the fishing industry. For the 11 months of 1978 to the end of November, the total fish catch was up 18 per cent in volume and 45 per cent in value, a tremendous increase. The landed value was up from $237 million in 1977 to $344 million in 1978. So there has been an increase in volume and a tremendous increase in value.
However, we have to be cautious. The fishing industry has always been a cyclical one. It has always had its ups and its downs; it has always had its three or four good years and then has its three or four poor years. While things are looking good now, we have got to keep that in mind as we approach the future of the fisheries.
There is no doubt that in the rural areas of Newfoundland today there is comparative prosperity, and certainly compared to ten years ago a tremendous prosperity. The rural areas of Newfoundland are dependent completely on the fishery, just as the rural areas of the rest of Canada are dependent upon agriculture. That brings me to my first point. At the recent constitutional conference, the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland put forward a position on the fisheries at the meetings leading up to it. At the meetings earlier in the year, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) agreed that there would be 14 subjects to be discussed by federal ministers preparing for the constitutional conference of last week. He agreed that one of those 14 areas should be fisheries.
Under the British North America Act today, the fisheries is completely under the constitutional jurisdiction of the Government of Canada, inland and coastal fisheries. That is quite clear; everything that happens in the water is under the control of the federal government. The Prime Minister agreed that this should be one of the 14 areas which could be discussed to see if changes were required and whether agreement could be met.
The striking thing at the federal-provincial conference was that the only one of these 14 subjects that the Government of Canada did not put a position forward on, and the only one where they did not have a position paper, was the fisheries. The government had no position paper on the fisheries, and they made no suggestion as to what changes there should be constitutionally with respect to the fisheries, because the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc), in that petulant display of the power he wields apparently over the government, threatened other government ministers that he would resign if the Government of Canada made the slightest change in its complete control over the fishery.
The second noticeable thing was that of all the 14 topics to be discussed at the constitutional conference, only one was the subject of a propaganda campaign by government ministers going across Canada speaking against it, and that was the fisheries. The minister of fisheries of Canada went about Canada during the period when these ministers were meeting in private sessions. The federal-provincial ministers were meeting with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde). They had three or four or five meetings in between constitutional conferences. The only federal minister who campaigned against any change, or was permitted to campaign against any change, was the minister of fisheries of Canada who spoke in Halifax and everywhere he could decrying any attempt to change complete and absolute federal control over the fishery.
The provinces of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia put forward a proposal that there be concurrent jurisdiction with federal paramountcy for some items of the fishery and provincial paramountcy for others. They suggested the federal government would have paramountcy over international negotiations, surveillance, international enforcement, basic research, conservation, global quotas of fish to be caught, quality standards for export, licensing of foreign vessels; and that the provinces would have paramountcy over determining quotas- inter-Canadian quotas after the federal government determined global quotas, the division of the quotas among provinces-harvesting plans, allocation of aquaculture and fish farming areas, and the licensing of local boats and fishing vessels, with the residual power in the fisheries to be with the provinces.
The minister of fisheries of Canada turned thumbs down on even discussing these proposals for concurrent jurisdiction in the fisheries. He would not discuss them. In his arrogance and his petulance, he threatened to resign if the Minister of Justice or the Government of Canada even agreed to discuss the points put forward by Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and agreed to by all of the other eight provinces. This was a position put on

February 16, 1979

the final day by the ten provinces of Canada. But no, the Fisheries dictator of Canada, the minister of fisheries of Canada, the chief cod of Canada, said "No, we are not going to discuss it."
Now here is an industry. The fishing industry is just as important to Newfoundland as the agricultural industry is to Saskatchewan. There is concurrent jurisdiction in agriculture. The Minister of Fisheries and the Environment is not prepared to concede that there be any mention or discussion of concurrent jurisdiction over fisheries with the provinces.
That attitude has to change. That attitude will change and certainly our party is prepared to discuss these issues with the provinces, keeping in mind that the federal government has to be paramount in at least the areas that were suggested by Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, if not other areas, but that the provinces, like Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, where fisheries is of such fantastic importance to their whole gross provincial products and the livelihood of the people-the whole roary area of Newfoundland with a third of the people living in my district completely dependent on the fishery-these provinces in which these people live should have some say as to what is to happen in the industry.
Here is one clipping to show the position the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment took before the constitutional conference started. He spoke in Halifax as reported on January 27, and said the Atlantic fishermen would be the eventual losers if Ottawa allows the coastal provinces to share in jurisdiction over the fishery. I say "bushwa", Mr. Speaker. That is not proven at all and he has done a disservice to Canada.
One of the arguments the minister uses is that there would be such confusion that the provinces would be competing with one another with disastrous results. Imagine the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment suggesting that there would be any disastrous results about the fishery if the provinces were permitted to have some control, when the federal government has controlled fisheries since 1867 and the fisheries just about died. From the early 1960s until 1975 the fishery nearly expired while the superior minister and his government had full control over it. Canada has had control ever since 1867, yet he turns around to suggest that if the provinces are given some concurrent jurisdiction there is such avarice and such anarchy in the provincial capitals, and there is such incompetence, the fishery would be ruined unless the mighty federal government and this minister have complete control. We are not to have any decisive say in our own lifestyle as to whether our province's economy flourishes or does not, if the present Minister of Fisheries and the Environment is not removed. But he will be removed.
Just look at this: this superior minister who talks so much about federal control being so important sent a release out on February 14 in which he said that fishery improvement loans were up 65 per cent. He said that the federal government under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act had guaranteed 900 loans totalling $16,338,000 during the period April 1,
Government Organization
1978 to September 1, 1978. Last year it was only $9,900,000 but this year it is $16,338,000. This is where the federal government guarantees loans granted by the chartered banks. These loans are not even made by the federal government, yet the minister boasts about these guaranteed loans, made by the banks and not by the federal government, which are up to $16 million this year across the whole of Canada.
Let us look at what is the record of the Newfoundland government in assisting the fisheries and the fishermen. The fisheries loan board of Newfoundland makes loans directly, not through the banks, to the fishermen for boat building, gear purchasing purposes and the like at very, very low rates of interest-I think it is 3 per cent, with very, very low down payments; you only have to put 5 per cent down to get loans from that board to build yourself a longliner, if you are a fit man to build a longliner and sail and operate it. This fisheries loan board of Newfoundland in Newfoundland alone made $23 million in loans to fishermen this year-that is, during the past financial year-as compared to this government guaranteeing across Canada $16 million. The Government of Canada, this mighty government that the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment thinks is so all important to the fisheries, is not doing anything in the line of financial assistance to fishermen. It is not even in the same category as the government of Newfoundland which loaned $23 million in 1,335 loans to bona fide fishermen. Those loans were made in the 1978-79 fiscal year by the Newfoundland fisheries loan board.
That will show the House that the Newfoundland government is taking its responsibilities for developing the fisheries seriously, even though it has no constitutional jurisdiction, and even though it is restricted to doing certain allied and subsidiary things and has no authority over quotas, licensing or what happens in the sea at all.
This government is going to have to decide whether the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment is bigger than the government. The Prime Minister says that one of the 14 topics they will consider for change is fisheries. He is sabotaged by his Minister of Fisheries and the Environment who campaigns across Canada against it, and finally says: Pierre, if you go one iota in this direction I am going to resign, and the great Prime Minister of Canada has to surrender to his little fisheries minister from New Brunswick! That is some spectacle. The Prime Minister of Canada claims he is very, very strong for free enterprise, that the market system is the best system, and yet he has reversed himself in recent years. This is the gentleman whose promises are completely contradicted by his own minister of fisheries, whose policies are not to rely on the private sector at all but to criticize and embarrass the private sector at every stance.
On September 25 of last year they had to write the Prime Minister to point out what the Prime Minister had said and to point out the attitude of the minister of fisheries, his opposition to them, his criticism of them, his refusal to deal with them and his refusal to enter licences for fish freezer vessels, freezer trawlers and the rest of it. The Prime Minister has only given a formal reply to their letter.

February 16, 1979
Government Organization
One thing this parliament and the Elouse of Commons fisheries and forestry committee will have to deal with-the chairman is here today-is the arbitrary nature of the exercise of power by the minister of fisheries. The minister of fisheries is a man who can make or break you if you are in the fishing business. He can give you gifts of hundreds of thousands of dollars. That is the power that this gentleman has today because he controls licensing, and there are no standards set as to when he is going to give you a licence and when he is not. He can approve of your going into an arrangement with the Bulgarians, if he wishes, with the Russians, the East Germans, the Poles or the Japanese, or he does not have to agree. He can allow this fish company to enter into an arrangement, or he does not have to allow it.
This year I was given, in answer to questions I asked at the committee in November, a list of the co-operative fisheries arrangements, as they call them, for 1978, where the minister of fisheries allowed Canadian unions or Canadian companies to go into arrangements with foreign partners in taking our fish resources in Canada. There is a long list of them. I want to point out that this is entirely arbitrary. If the minister does not like you he does not have to let you enter into that arrangement; he just takes you off his list. Or if he likes you, or if you are a political ally, or if you are allied to the Liberal party, he can allow you to go into a deal.
Just look at squid. The minister did extraordinary things on the quota for offshore squid-not the squid that comes into shore. He gave a gift to various fishing companies in Canada. He said to them: "Look, there are so many thousand tons of offshore squid, we cannot catch it here in Canada. We have not got the vessels for it, the facilities, because it has to be frozen immediately after it is caught. Gentlemen, I am going to give you a licence and you can enter into deals with the Japanese or whoever is equipped to catch squid, and you can sell your right to this licence I am giving you. In effect, you can sell it to the Japanese or whoever wants to buy the squid and you can make yourself $100,000 or $50,000, whatever the amount might be, depending on how much squid I allot to you".
This is the power that we are allowing this individual minister of fisheries. He allowed H.B. Nickerson & Sons Ltd. to take a quota of 4,000 metric tons and they made arrangements with the U.S.S.R. and Japan for these people to catch the squid. The U.S.S.R. and Japan paid them a fee, so much per ton. They did not have to lift a finger. Nickerson did not have to catch it. They did not have to lift a finger, except to make a few commercial arrangements.
It was not just Nickerson. Some 2,000 tons went to Karl Karlsen & Co. Ltd.; 1,600 metric tons went to United Maritime Fishermen Cooperative; 400 tons each went to Ocean Harvesters Ltd., Earle Bros Ltd., Quinlan Bros. Ltd., P. Janes & Sons, of Newfoundland, and to A. Northcott Ltd., Arctic Fishery Products, Port aux Basques Seafoods-400 tons each-and Bay Bulls Sea Products, Beothic Fish Processors, Bonavista Cold Storage and Burgeo Seafoods Ltd. In other words, it was a gift. The minister of fisheries came along and

said to those companies: "Gentlemen, here is a 400-ton gift of squid which you are not going to catch, but you can allow the Japanese to catch it and you can get a fee from the Japanese for that purpose. I am giving you a gift of money." And we are allowing this! There is no board set up to oversee it and there are no rules or regulations to deal with it.
Then he said to National Sea Products: "Gentlemen, here are 6,000 metric tons", and they entered into arrangements with the U.S.S.R., East Germany and Japan. Then he said to Fishery Products Limited in Newfoundland: "Gentlemen, here are 4,000 metric tons. You do not have to put a net in the water, you do not have to send a boat out, you can't because you do not have the equipment, but I am giving you 4,000 metric tons to help your balance sheet this year". I have heard that some of these companies made several hundreds of thousands of dollars just from that alone. The fishermen themselves were allowed the deals through their union. I believe that in some of these deals they were required to process 25 per cent of the squid onshore, and the rest was taken into these freezer vessels and they went off and it was never dealt with in Canada at all.
What about our 7,000 plant workers? Are they to be forgotten in all these deals that the minister of fisheries is in? He is the biggest dealer in Canada. He is big enough to be the biggest in Las Vegas. He is the biggest deal maker the fisheries has ever seen in Canada, and it is all done arbitrarily. There is no principle laid down. It depends on whether you can scratch the minister's back nicely enough. This is a shocking situation and I intend to propose to the fisheries committee that we get right into this.
Now, 3,500 metric tons went to B.C.M. Investment Limited. Who are they? Is this one of Canada's great national companies? All I am able to find out is that there are three individuals who own the company, all Canadians. It is a one-shot deal. They do not own a processing plant. One of the three principals is associated with a small fishing company. Why should B.C.M. Investment Limited be given a gift of 3,500 metric tons of squid, which they sold to Hoko Fishing Company Limited in Japan? This demands explanation.
Another company is Atlantic Sea Products Limited which received 2,500 metric tons. They sold that 2,500 metric tons to Kyokuyo Company Limited in Japan. Who is Atlantic Sea Products Limited? I am told that they have a small fish processing plant down in Hubbards. I do not know what other connection they have with the fishery.
So apart from the large established fishing companies and the smaller ones which were given gifts, there is B.C.M. Investment. They got 3,500 metric tons of squid, 2,000 metric tons of silver hake, which they sold to Hoko Fishing Company Limited, and they got 300 metric tons of Argentine which they sold to Hoko Fishing Company Limited.
What is going on in the administration of fisheries in this country? That is what I want to know, and anyone else who hears this will want to know it too. This minister should not be allowed to give gifts worth tens of thousands and hundreds of
F ebruary 16, 1979

thousands of dollars like this to companies in Canada, or unions or individuals, arbitrarily with no standards set down by this House, no legislation set down by this House or no appeal. You cannot appeal if he refuses you a licence. There is no appeal procedure. There is no appeal court. There is this complete arbitrary use of discretionary power and authority by the minister of fisheries, who is tyrannizing the fishing industry with the immense power that he has. So, Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that the fisheries committee will agree to pursue this.
There are more and more peculiar things going on all the time. The minister of fisheries says that you cannot expand your fishing fleet. "No, I am not going to give you a licence to replace your trawlers; I am not going to allow you to expand your fleet; but I will allow you to enter into all kinds of deals with foreign concerns." When we object to that, he says, "But our Canadian companies can't catch argentine, they can't catch silver hake, they can't catch squid, they are not equipped to do it". Well, how can they get equipped to do it if the minister will not allow them to go into the business of building freezer trawlers? You have to have freezer trawlers to catch these species of fish. He has the industry caught in a vicious circle. He says: "Gentlemen, you can't have a licence for freezer trawler, no, no, no, no." When we object to his giving out all these deals to foreign groups-the East Germans, the Poles, the Russians and all the rest of them-he says: "Well, 1 have to do this because we can't take our quota of silver hake, argentine and the like." We say that he has to start moving now.
The minister is a propagandist. When he spoke here on January 24 he exaggerated what it is we are asking for, what sensible people in the industry are asking for. He said as reported at page 2534 of Hansard'.
Sometimes these protests are accompanied by calls to cash in on this wonderful new bonanza by vastly expanding the fishing fleet.
There is not a soul in Canada asking to vastly expand the fishing fleet, the slaveen; he has just made that up. What we are asking for is the right to replace the fleet that is here now and perhaps expand it a bit; and the right to get some freezer trawlers to catch argentine, squid, mackerel and silver hake, which we cannot do now because we do not have freezer trawlers. The minister went on to say:
In both cases these protests are from people who have not taken the trouble to study the situation or have chosen to ignore the facts for whatever reason.
Nonsense! These protests are by the industry itself and by others who have done a little study in this industry. On the same page he says:
The idea of a massive fleet expansion for traditional species... is a pipe dream.
Sure, it is a pipe dream because nobody ever suggests it except the minister who wants to have something to knock down.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what has he been doing lately? What has this ingenious minister been up to lately, this veritable Santa Claus. He should come in here with a red suit and a white beard. At the moment he has cod on his mind, the
Government Organization
northern cod-2J3K-off northern Newfoundland and Labrador. I was delighted to have the chance yesterday to give recognition to our great new movement in Newfoundland, CodPeace. This movement is the equivalent to cod as Greenpeace is for the rest of the world. It is a movement that wants to protect the cod from the savage seal. This group was initiated by Mr. Miller Ayre of St. John's who deserves a medal. He should get the Canada Medal or whatever it is, like the people who are walking around with these medals crumbling off their chests and bowing them over. It is time that a few of those medals were scattered out where they should go. I propose Miller Ayre right now, immediately, for the whatever it is, the Order of Canada, in recognition of his great movement that will sweep the world-CodPeace. We have nothing to lose but our cod pieces.


Stanley Howard Knowles: "In cod we trust".


John Carnell Crosbie: In cod we trust. There is a total allowable catch of northern cod of 170,000 tons. One hundred thousand tons are for the inshore fishery. This is the cod off northern Newfoundland and Labrador. There are 30,000 tons for Canadian trawlers, 25,000 tons for foreign trawlers and 15,000 tons remaining. The minister of fisheries is a dictator, and he has arbitrarily decided that he is going to permit that 15,000 tons remaining in the quota to be caught by foreign vessels so long as they sell the catch to fish plants in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia.
That may be sensible because we do not have special ice-reinforced trawlers that can catch this cod. We are in the humiliating position that we cannot catch our own quota of the offshore, northern cod because we do not have the kind of vessels that will do it, and the minister will not permit the industry to get them. But he is going to permit now the East Germans and the Poles to catch this 15,000 tons as long as they sell the cod, frozen onshore, to our own fish plants for them to process. That is in the circumstance that we cannot catch it ourselves, a circumstance which the minister has put us in. It is the minister who has got us in the position that we cannot catch it ourselves, the Canadian industry. That makes sense, but only because he has forced us into that position.
Fishery Products Limited tried fishing last year and were very successful in catching fish under the ice, up in the ice, but their trawlers are not specially ice-reinforced. They had such heavy damage that the insurance companies forbade them to try that fishery again this year. The East Germans and Poles can catch and land that fish for much less than we can. The minister has not given the trade much time. He did not give them much advance notice. There is a lot of equipment necessary to make this successful so that you can take the frozen products and process them.
My point is this. The minister or the government-and if they don't do it, they will-must announce how they will license in the future in order to permit our present fleets to be replaced over the next five to ten years, the stern trawlers and side trawlers. Our own Fishery Products in Newfoundland has 40 trawlers. They need advance notice because these trawlers

February 16, 1979
Government Organization
today cost something like $6 million or $7 million. They cannot arrange a whole lot of money in just a couple of months. They must know whether they are going to get one licence next year, two the next or two the next, or however, so they can start replacing the fleet.
The minister has a new policy, which he says he has, and I agree with the concept; he wants vessels owned by individual fishermen or by companies they form rather than by processing companies. I am quoting from his speech which he made in Halifax on January 26. I agree with that concept. It would be better to have our fishing fleet owned separately from the processing companies. But how is an individual fisherman to accomplish this? How is he to get $7 million or $10 million for a fishing trawler? That was not explained.
The processing companies now have to get vessels or they will not have fish for their plants. They have to get the catch themselves. That is an historical development. They have to know if the minister is serious about this. If he is serious, they are not going to build any more ships. It is the minister's duty to explain how he is going to accomplish this, and see that the individual fisherman or that trawler companies only and not processing companies get the money and develop the fleets that will be needed to get fish for the plants so that the plant workers will have work over the next ten or twenty years. He cannot leave them in the dark, making this policy statement and then not following up. The industry is going to have a basket case in the next few months if he does not start making some decisions. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) is from Cape Breton, a fishing area; is he going to sit and let this power hungry minister of fisheries give out these licenses, these presents and gifts? Is he going to allow him to complete his policy? Are we now to allow our own Canadian industry-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I just have a few minutes to conclude. For the future success and development of our fishery, we need to have growth in the inshore fishery and in the offshore fishery. It is unfortunate that for political reasons the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment and the members of the government have continually stressed the inshore fishery and have seemed to ignore the offshore fishery.
There are 7,000 fish plant workers in eastern Canada who are not going to be able to get a decent year's work; they are going to be on part time work unless we have a successful and

profitable offshore fishery as well as the inshore fishery. So it needs to be balanced. This is the kind of development we need but unfortunately the minister seems to exhibit some prejudice against a strong and healthy Canadian offshore fishery at the present time. If this is the case it is the fish plant workers who will suffer in the long run as well as the fishermen themselves.
It is peculiar the minister should say he is biased in favour of the inshore fishery when his actions in certain areas show otherwise. But now that the fishing industry has become a prosperous one it is time the government started spending some real money on the fishery. We have noticed in my constituency for the last couple of years that the increased emphasis we hear about does not seem to apply when a man is building a long liner. The government is supposed to have a strong bias in favour of the inshore fishery but when a fisherman in Newfoundland wants to build a long liner, a vessel under 75 feet in length-and these have become quite expensive lately, the price running anywhere from $250,000 to $500,000-he can go to the provincial government and get a provincial government subsidy. He can get a loan from the provincial government at an interest rate of 3 per cent. But when fishermen come here for a federal subsidy, they find that the mighty Government of Canada has only $4 million for these purposes to cover the whole of Canada. They discover that the regulations have been changed and that today, before they can get any bounty or assistance for building a long liner, a man has to be replacing a vessel which is at least eight years old.
This is the great federal government which says it is so biased in favour of the inshore fishermen. If that is the case, why aren't they doing anything further to replace these boats? Why aren't they helping new fishermen to enter the industry, men who haven't owned a boat before but who have been fishing for years and are interested in acquiring a boat? It is time for the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc) to put his money where his big mouth is, where his big inflammatory mouth is. It is also time for his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who bellows like a bullfrog about his great support of the inshore fishery, to see that some real money is put into funds to help fishermen acquire new long liners and new boats for the inshore fishery as well as the offshore. I do not want to mention the Deputy Prime Minister, of course, because he is in the same category; I don't want to hurt his feelings. He is here today and he has called this bill.
We have to remember the plant workers. If the bias of the Minister of Fisheries against the offshore fishery continues, I have three plants in my district, dependent on offshore fishing, the National Sea Plant in St. John's employing some 500 or 600 workers, the Fisheries Products plant in Trepassey, the medium-sized plant in Fermeuse. These plants employ maybe 1,000 workers between them whose jobs on a year-round basis would be endangered if the offshore fleet continues to be neglected by the minister of fisheries.
There are dozens of other plants, inshore plants, which also buy some offshore fish at Bay Bulls, Witless Bay, Arnold's Cove, Admiral's Beach, Branch, St. Bride's, Southern Har-
February 16, 1979

bour, Riverhead. There is a new one going up at St. Mary's, there is Fairhaven-I could name another dozen. We have to remember that when the minister of fisheries "knocks" the industry, when he knocks the offshore fishery, when he shows his bias in favour of the East Germans, the Poles, the Russians, the Japanese and everyone else who fishes offshore except our own national companies which have been taking chances for the last 50 years, before the hon. gentleman was even thought of, he is endangering the employment of all 7,000 or 8,000 fish plant workers in Newfoundland and the Atlantic provinces.
In addition, the minister should spend more money on the inshore fishing villages. There are some 50 or 60 fishermen fishing from Portugal Cove South. That is their whole livelihood. For two years now I have been pointing out to the minister that the wharf and community stage are going into the sea, that the breakwater is crumbling. They are exposed to the sea and if he does not act and start repairs by early April there will be no inshore fishery from Portugal Cove South this year.
Here is an industry whose value is burgeoning. The government is getting greatly increased income from the fishing companies and it is time to use it to increase the funds available for Portugal Cove South, for the work needed at Renews, for the slipway which was promised at St. Shotts, for completion of the work at Come-By-Chance, for the replacement of the wharf at Long Harbour. Peter's River, St. Vincent's, is one of the great inshore fishing commmunities of North America. Peter's River, exposed entirely to the sea, dependent entirely upon human construction to preserve a place to land fish, is a tremendous inshore Fishery; there are inshore fishermen who earned in excess of $50,000 in the six-weeks' trap fishery this year. This is a place which needs a community stage and where the wharf has to be expanded and facilities for landing have to be improved so that the fishermen of St. Vincent's and Peter's River, many of whom are now returning to the fishery, can have the necessary room to Fish and land their catch.
Gaskiers and Pt. La Haye are part of the fishing community of St. Mary's Bay where some of the best inshore fishermen in the province have to land their fish in primitive circumstances. Last year and in 1977 they salted their fish. This year they are landing it fresh. These men deserve help and encouragement. They are building, under the Canada Works program, a magnificent fishing gear storage shed and they are doing the same thing in Peter's River. It shows the value of some of the Canada Works projects. I can assure the minister here today that no projects in Canada are better constructed nor is any of that money better used than at Peter's River, Gaskiers and St. Mary's Bay. If he would like to come with me, or take me down in his jet some time, to Newfoundland-he is only going to have a jet for a couple of months now, until he is bounced out and becomes an ordinary citizen-I would like to show him those two projects. That is where Canada Works funds can really come in handy.
Government Organization
Bay Bulls, Mr. Speaker, is one of the best fishing places in the island and it needs a wharf. It also needs a slipway. These have to be started this year. The minister has promised action for Bay Bulls but has dragged back on his promise for a fishing patrol vessel base. There has been no progress over the last 12 months and we want to know when that work is to start and why it has not got under way as the hon. gentleman promised when the by-election was on. I was elected despite the minister's promises that if the Liberals were elected they would go ahead with this patrol vessel base in Bay Bulls. I was elected and shall be re-elected there very shortly.
I call on the minister now to get this great fishing patrol base in Bay Bulls under way. He should not drag back just because the Liberal candidate does not have a chance, not a hope. He is going to become a powerless third; he might be right off the ballot paper altogether if somebody doesn't take mercy on him and decide to give him the odd vote. The minister should forget politics and just get on with his promises in Bay Bulls to put in the new Crosbie fishery patrol base for the fishing patrol vessels of eastern Canada. If the minister does that I will be very pleased, particularly if he names it after me. That will make me even more pleased.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs, speaking in the chamber on January 25, is reported on page 2561 of Hansard to have said:
I believe that our markets are not sufficiently diversified and are in a more precarious state than is generally realized.
Well, the Deputy Prime Minister is the man in charge of the GATT negotiations. What has the hon. gentleman done to ensure that the worries and fears of the Secretary of State for External Affairs are laid to rest? Apparently nothing. The minister says our markets are not diversified and are in a more precarious state than is generally realized. The government is supposed to be negotiating with the European Common Market to get duty-free or low-duty entry for our fish into the Common Market so we would no longer be almost totally dependent on the United States.
What have the Deputy Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) done to realize this main negotiating point? As far as we can find out, they are being treated with contempt by the European Common Market. Is the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment going to come clean and tell us exactly what is happening in the GATT negotiations? Will it help the Canadian fishermen? Are we going to be able to diversify our markets? It is not enough for the Secretary of State for External Affairs to say he is concerned. He has been in power and in the government since 1968. When is he going to take some action so that we can diversify our markets and not be completely dependent on the United States?
We have a strong fishermen's union in Newfoundland, and that is a good thing and I support it; but I am not going to be completely subservient to the fishermen's union in Newfound-

February 16, 1979
Government Organization
land nor to any other union, and when the fishermen's union of Newfoundland is led by an NDP supporter and when they attempt to get the rest of the members of that union to support the NDP, I have to say I demur.
I have to say that I do not agree, that I think it is a bad mistake for Mr. Cashin and the leaders of the Newfoundland fishermen's union to attempt to get that union to support the NDP. Number one, the membership is not going to support the NDP. They are free-born Newfoundlanders who are not going to be told by anyone whom to support. They are not going to listen to union bosses any more than they listen to company bosses or government bosses. They are free, independent figures, and they are not just going to follow slavishly the goals of the NDP.
So I say yes, we need a strong union, fishermen's union, in Newfoundland. I believe in countervailing power. I think we also need a strong, prosperous fishing industry in the trade of Newfoundland, and I think we need two governments who take a real interest and co-operate in getting the fishing industry going.
I said during the summer that the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment is a puppet of Mr. Richard Cashin, and lo and behold, the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment of Canada wrote a letter to the St. John's Daily News which said, "I am not a puppet". That was the purport of his letter. Imagine the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment having to write a letter to the daily press to say that he is not a puppet. He so appears to be a puppet that when he was called a puppet he had to out-puppet himself and write the St. John's Daily News to say he was not a puppet. He has the appearance of being a puppet, and he does not have the appearance of being fair in weighing the conflicting claims and demands of the trade and the union.
So, Mr. Speaker, I have always been a strong supporter of a good organization for the Newfoundland fishermen. We now have one, but there are certain conflicts of interest in that union which have got to be noted. The interests of the fish plant workers the union represents are not uniform with the interests of the inshore fishermen on all occasions or the offshore fishermen. Many of the deals, for example, that the union entered into last year with the Bulgarians and the Russians did not require any of the fish caught to be landed and processed in Newfoundland, and that is to the detriment of the fish plant workers. And in many other deals of the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment which I recited to the House earlier today that he authorized to be entered into for the catching of squid and the like, the squid did not have to processed in Newfoundland or in Nova Scotia or in Canada, so that Canadian workers lost that kind of work.
This is all pretty shortsighted, and there are many questions to be answered as to what happened last year and whether it was desirable for the arrangements to be entered into that were entered into in the interests of everybody in the industry. The Minister of Fisheries and the Environment says that he is operating in the interests of the inshore fishermen. Well, why, if that is the case, did he take the shrimp resource that belongs

to Newfoundland and Labrador, the great new shrimp resources found off Labrador, and give three licences to his own province of New Brunswick, two catching licences for that shrimp to the province of Quebec, two to Nova Scotia and only two to Newfoundland, this huge shrimp resource off Labrador that rightly belongs to the fishermen of northern Newfoundland and Labrador? And he has retained three of these shrimp licences for fishermen in Labrador who at the present time have no catching capacity. Why did he ignore the interests of the fishermen of Labrador and of northern Newfoundland in distributing these shrimp licences which he now controls in an arbitrary fashion? It takes a huge investment to equip yourself with shrimp-catching vessels for those areas because the shrimp are in deep water.
The result of his action was that Fishery Products Limited could not expand their shrimp processing operation at St. Anthony because two licences were not sufficient for landing shrimp at St. Anthony, and the fishermen of Labrador are now dealing with the minister and trying to take advantage of this resource for themselves. According to my information, at the beginning of February they were getting nowhere with the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment.
The Labrador resources advisory council has made proposals for licences to go to the six communities from Rigolet north to be used in the interests of the people of Labrador. There is a proposal for a co-op to use the licences. There is a proposal for equipment to be put in the plant at Cartwright that might employ 140 or 150 people, but up to February 1- and I have not had a chance to check today because this debate came on quickly and unknown to me-they have had no response from the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. If the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment is so concerned about the inshore fishermen, why did he take the shrimp resources and divide them up by giving three licences to his own province, two to Quebec, two to Nova Scotia and only two to Newfoundland and three to Labrador?
I might quote from the Union Forum of July, 1978. They call it the single most disappointing decision made in his tenure as Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. They say that this was a political decision and that he is taking away from the people of Labrador and northern Newfoundland the possibility to improve greatly their economic base. I quote from the editorial:
If we are going to start getting into allocating access to lucrative resources on a political basis, then the next thing you know fishermen in Labrador and northern Newfoundland will begin to demand access to the lucrative scallop fishery on Georges Bank.
The union puts its finger right on the problem with this minister. It is politics, and too many of his decisions are based on raw politics. I see that my time is up, Mr. Speaker.


Ian Watson: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to make a
speech, but I have a question to ask of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member raising a point of order?
February 16, 1979


Ian Watson: A question on the bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member can make a speech. We are on second reading, not in Committee of the Whole. The hon. member can make a speech, but there is no way by which he can put a question to a minister who does not have the floor. He can put a question to a member who has the floor.


Ian Watson: Mr. Speaker, I will, in effect, use this time as a speech, but all I want is to ask one single question. It relates to clause 14 of part III which deals with the Department of the Environment. Clause 14 would repeal sections 5 to 7 of the Government Organization Act, and my question relates to section 5 (a) (i) which reads as follows:
(i) the preservation and enhancement of the quality of the natural environment,
including water, air and soil quality-
Subsection (a) refers to the act's having jurisdiction-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I do not wish to prevent the hon. member from making a speech, but I must refer him to citation 381 of Beauchesne which says that second reading of a bill is that stage when it is proper to enter into a discussion and propose a motion relative to the principle of the measure. On a motion for second reading it is out of order to discuss the clauses of the bill.
I think the hon. member is ahead of his time. The question he wishes to ask will have to be put when the bill reaches the committee stage. As I said, he can make a speech on the principle of the bill. He can perhaps refer to a clause. But asking a question about a specific clause should be left for the committee stage.


Ian Watson: Mr. Speaker, the reason I started the way I did was that I understood that there was a general disposition this afternoon that speeches were to end with the speech of the hon. member who just spoke. I did not want to place the House in a position where there would be a succession of other speeches. If I am not going to be followed by other speeches, I will be very brief. I want to make just one point. If, however, my intervention will result in a number of other speeches, I will sit down right now. Do I have the assurance of the House that there will not be other speeches? If that is the case-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member is asking for something no one can guarantee because no one knows what the hon. member is going to say. Having been in the chair for eight years, I know that speeches generally bring on more speeches.


Ian Watson: I seek, in effect, an assurance by this intervention that this jurisdiction, which apparently is going to be given to the Department of the Environment, will include the right of the department to ensure the preservation and enhancement of the quality of the natural environment on Indian reserves. This is of particular concern to a great number of people in the Montreal area and in particular in my
Northwest Territories Act
constituency area of Chateauguay, who have been adversely affected by certain developments affecting the quality of the environment on the Indian reserve of Caughnawaga. This has had overlapping effects for the people of Chateauguay.
I simply make this intervention in order to seek an assurance from the minister at some point later on that this will, in effect, allow the federal government to take steps, quite apart from its rights and jurisdictions for Indian affairs, through for example, a section of the Department of the Environment dealing with forestry, to deal with such matters on the Caughnawaga Indian reserve and with other matters relating to the environment on that reserve. That is all I have to say, Mr. Speaker.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.

Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: that Bill C-28, an act to amend the Northwest Territories Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief and in this way I hope to set an example which everyone else will feel compelled to follow.
Bill C-28 is a very short bill which contains only two clauses. It is a bill to which, I can say from the government side, we are prepared to put through all three stages today to expedite it. I have made that offer through private channels and I make it today publicly and await to see if it engenders a response from all opposition parties.
As I said, the bill contains two clauses. The First clause would provide the commissioner in council of the Northwest Territories with the power to alter the size of the council by territorial ordinance from 15 to as many as 25 members. This is a power that the Yukon territorial council has had since 1974. My impression is that this amendment would be supported by all members of the existing council. In fact, this particular provision has been the object of a fairly vigorous lobby in Ottawa by members of the council. They have made their concern known to me, and, I think, to hon. members opposite, that in their view this amendment is in the interests of the Northwest Territories and they ask the House of Commons to move on it. That is why I am prepared to move on all three stages of the bill today, if that meets with the support of the House.
The second clause of the bill would validate an ordinance passed by the commissioner in council at its October session in

February 16, 1979
Northwest Territories Act
anticipation that parliament would enact the bill before us today. The council amendment ordinance empowers the commissioner to describe 22 electoral districts upon passage of this bill, an increase of seven over the presently constituted council of 15 members.
The rationale for the bill is straightforward. Apart from the fact that it has the support of the council and many people in the Northwest Territories, I was able to meet with the new mayor of Inuvik in my office and she told me they strongly support it. I understand Chief Johnny Charlie from Fort McPherson made his views known on radio today and said that he supports it.
I know there are some who have misgivings about it, and I suspect the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) may want to develop that; but I think on balance it would be fair to say that the council as presently constituted with 15 members is too small to be properly representative of the cultural and geographic differences of the Northwest Territories. I think it is also fair to say that, given the period of time when we are moving in a very substantive way toward a responsible government in the Northwest Territories, there is a great deal of political communication that must be undertaken, and that can probably be undertaken more effectively by a council of 22 members than one of 15, given the land mass with which the members have to deal, the dispersed nature of the population and the cultural differences.
I think I should also point out to the House that 1 have discussed the bill before us with the special representative of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the hon. Mr. Drury. He studied it and he indicated he thinks it constitutes a forward step and he strongly supports it. Obviously it is a move to reinforce the direction in which I think we are all going toward greater autonomy and responsible government, but it does not-this is a point I should like to stress because it is this point that the opposition, namely, those who wish to be cautious on this bill, are stressing-inhibit constitutional options that would be before us and before the Northwest Territories in the future. I think it is important to recognize that.
The final point I would make is the point about urgency. The statutory life of the council will expire on March 31 of this year and an election must be held soon thereafter. It will be conducted by the chief electoral officer of Canada who, of course, would appreciate as much lead time as possible to prepare for this event. I hope, given the general support that exists for the bill, the argument of urgency, and the fact that the bill in no way precludes constitutional options which we will be exploring, that hon. members will see fit to put this bill through all three stages today.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate. The debate on this bill is long overdue. The bill puts into law what members of the territorial council in the Northwest Territories have been asking for for a long period of time.
We on this side of the House have requested this amendment for some time, but it was not until late last fall that the minister saw fit to bring in the legislation. At that time we indicated to him that we were prepared to give the bill speedy passage, three stages in one day. We are still prepared to do that. We would be very happy to see the bill have three readings today. Unfortunately I understand hon. members of the New Democratic Party are not prepared to give such an undertaking.
As the minister has said, the matter is urgent. Why is it urgent? The answer is very simple. The territorial council have requested this change. Because of the vastness of the territory they represent, the council feels it is not realistic that there should be only 15 members on the council. They feel they cannot represent adequately the people who are scattered throughout the territories.
Approximately a week ago I was in the territories and had occasion to talk with members of the territorial council. I spoke with one councillor who told me that, in order for him to visit one isolated community, he had to charter an aircraft. For him to charter an aircraft, spend the day in the community and fly back cost approximately S500. He also indicated that he had a number of such communities in his constituency. One can see it is almost impossible for 15 members to represent properly the people in the area. This is the feeling of the members of the territorial council.
In anticipation of an increase in its numbers, the council passed an ordinance on October 27, 1978 which provided for the setting up of 22 different ridings or constituencies and for the provision of 22 members to represent those constituencies. Clause 2 of the present bill provides for retroactive approval of that ordinance. As the hon. minister pointed out, the life of the council in the Northwest Territories expires on March 31, 1979. This is why members of the territorial council came to Ottawa prior to Christmas. The minister said that they were lobbying, but I do not feel, when members of a provincial government or a territorial government come to Ottawa to talk with either the minister or opposition members, that they are lobbying. I feel they are doing their job; they are attempting to represent their provinces or tneir territory.


James Hugh Faulkner: That is what I meant.


Douglas Charles Neil: It is unfortunate that the New Democratic Party has not seen fit to undertake to give three readings to this legislation today. In talking to members of the legislative council last week, they indicated that it is very possible, if this legislation does not receive quick consideration, they will have to proceed with their election under the old provisions of the act. In other words, there would be an election of only 15 members rather than 22, and another four years will go by before there could be proper representation on the council.
I am disappointed in one respect regarding this bill. For some time the territorial council has asked the minister to change the legislation. Rather than the council being called a

February 16, 1979

council, it would be called an assembly; and rather than being called members of the territorial council, the members would be called members of the legislative assembly. Unfortunately the minister has not seen fit to include that provision in the bill.
This bill is an important one because it gives better representation to all areas of the territories. There are those people in the north who say that the territorial council does not represent all the people of the north. But if one examines the make-up of the present council consisting of 15 individuals, one will find that nine of those 15 councillors are native people.
Last week when the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) and myself were in the territories, we met with the territorial council for approximately two hours. At that time one of the territorial councillors posed the following question: "Some of the people say to me that I do not represent the native people. What do you people think?" We asked him about his constituency and his constituents. It was practically made up of native people. We responded to him by saying that under a democracy, once a person is elected by secret ballot, he represents all the people in his constituency whether or not they voted for him.
If one examines the attitude of the government over the years, it would appear that the government and the minister do not believe that the duly elected territorial council, the representatives of the people, in fact represents the people of the territories. One may ask why I say this. It is very simple. The government and the minister have refused to allow the territorial council or representatives of the territorial council to participate actively in the land claims negotiations.
This goes for the Yukon as well. I understand representatives from the Yukon were in Ottawa a week or two ago. They were members of the newly elected government in the Yukon. They asked the minister to give them the right of representation in the negotiations which will be and are taking place with the natives in the Yukon concerning land claims. When the COPE agreement was negotiated, at least the agreement in principle, it is interesting to note that it provided for the setting aside of roughly 10,000 square miles of the Yukon Territory on the north slope of the Yukon and that there was no prior consultation with the territorial council in the Yukon respecting that land. Representatives of the territorial council in the Yukon read the COPE agreement and found that the Government of Canada had set aside some 10,000 square miles on its own.
I suppose this land is owned by the people of Canada, but basically it is owned by the people of the Yukon. It was set aside without the properly elected people or the legislators in the Yukon having an opportunity to have a say in it.
I suppose that at some time in the future the government will say in respect of the COPE agreement that the territorial government had some input because the commissioner of the Northwest Territories signed this agreement. The commission-
Northwest Territories Act
er acts under the direct authority of the minister. He does not act under the authority of the government of the Northwest Territories, and he signed the agreement under the instructions of the minister and not under the authorization of the territorial government.
I want to make it perfectly clear that any reference I have made to the COPE agreement has nothing to do with the contents, which will come up sooner or later in parliament for consideration. I will reserve my comments on the agreement until that time. I use that as an example of the manner in which the Government of Canada, not only this minister but ministers of Indian affairs and northern development in the past, deal with or treat that area.


James Hugh Faulkner: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think it is important that the issue be clarified. I am not sure the hon. member is up to date on events, but there is now a memorandum of understanding between the Government of Canada and the government of the Yukon-


An hon. Member:: That is not a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


James Hugh Faulkner: I understand the hon. member is interested in hearing what the update to the position is, and I think it is important that it is clarified.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The minister does not have the floor so he cannot make a statement. He could do so, perhaps, when he concludes the second reading stage of the bill.


An hon. Member:: You were a great Deputy Speaker. Didn't you learn anything?


James Hugh Faulkner: I thought members over there had an interest in the truth.


Douglas Charles Neil: We on this side of the House are always interested in the truth, and if there is information that has come to light recently to which we are not privy I would certainly be very happy to listen to what the minister has to say when that is possible.
The government over the years has consistently treated the Yukon and Northwest Territories as colonies. The minister in his remarks a few moments ago made some reference to the granting of responsible government. I suggest that this government has no intention of ever granting provincial status, for example, to either of the territories, because the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of this country within the last year made that statement. He said the territories would not have provincial status during his lifetime.
It is interesting to note what the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson) said when he spoke during the referendum debate on January 31.1 quote from page 2774 of Hansard as follows:
Let us look at the Yukon. The Conservative party now is committed to giving provincehood to the Yukon. What does that mean? It means provincehood to the Northwest Territories shortly after, and eventually it means turning over the

February 16, 1979
Northwest Territories Act
natural resources of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories to extremely small populations. That policy was enunciated by the Leader of the Opposition and the Conservative party. If that is the position of the Conservative party, the Liberal position is somewhat different. The government considers the natural resources of the north are the common heritage of all Canadians.
Those are the remarks of the hon. member for Laprairie. This legislation today enlarges the legislature. I feel that, regardless of the attitude of this government to the territorial council, this change means greater representation to the people in the Northwest Territories, and, whether the government likes it or not, it means a step toward self-government and provincial status for the N.W.T. Self-government cannot evolve without a settlement of native claims, and the territorial governments, whether in the Yukon or the Northwest Territories, must be a part of these negotiations.
I have a copy of a speech made by the distinguished member of the territorial council, the Hon. Arnold McCallum, in the legislature of the Northwest Territories on February 1. He was replying to the commissioner's opening address. I should like to read a short part of what he said as I think it is important. He said:
I rise to talk about the most important contemporary issue facing this Legislature. And, in talking of it, I rise to make what I think is the most important speech I have ever made in this House.
I do this because I sense that we are approaching an intersection, a point at which all of us in the Northwest Territories-native and non-native-may push ahead to a better social order, or doom ourselves to the back-burner, and throw away our main chance to embrace in the N.W.T. what the rest of Canada takes for granted-self government.
I believe that the route we choose depends on whether we as members of this Legislature behave as politicians seeking personal or partisan gain-or whether instead we become statesmen.
I believe that if a free Northwest Territories is to emerge, that if a free Northwest Territories is to evolve, we must then become statesmen, wise in the science of government and unselfish and conciliatory in our conduct and in our work.
It is for this reason that I want to speak to you today, and speak to all citizens of the Northwest Territories about a species of wildlife.
It comes to light later that the species of wildlife to which he refers is government bureaucrats. He goes on to state:
The federal intent in land claims is to divide and conquer, and to divide and conquer us all.
In now agree with the Indian Brotherhood of the N.W.T. I now agree with the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada. I don't agree that the federal government is the culprit. As I've said, I believe the federal bureaucracy is. But I do agree with these groups as to what is happening: Divide the peoples of the Northwest Territories and, by so doing, conquer and control the peoples of the Northwest Territories.
This speech received little if any coverage in the southern press. It is an important speech and I believe it expresses the opinions of many northerners. It is a speech of some 30 pages. I do not know if the minister has read it, but I recommend it to him. Certainly it should be made compulsory reading for all senior civil servants in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It recites a scenario in the north of divide and conquer; a divisive policy at a time when we should be doing everything possible to unite our country. I do not blame the minister. He is only one of four whom we have had in the past six and a half years that I have been here. He has a heavy and responsible portfolio. The short period of time

which the various ministers have spent in the portfolio makes it impossible for them to grasp completely what is happening. They must depend on senior civil servants for advice.
The future of our country depends on the attitude and policies of the government, not only toward the native people, but toward all the people of the north, and in particular the elected representatives of those people. Fortunately there will be a federal election soon. I say that that election will bring about a change in government, and under a Conservative government there will be the development in the north envisaged by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert, which will be based on the spirit of co-operation between all northerners regardless of background.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Charles Neil: In closing, I would like to say that there is an urgency to this bill. It is important that it be passed so the next election in the Northwest Territories can be held on the basis of 22 seats. I urge the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) to make a speech at some length about what he would like. I hope that we will grant third reading to this bill today so that it may become law.


Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to make some remarks on Bill C-28, the bill which is before the House at this time, and I am pleased to follow the two previous speakers who remarked on this bill, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Faulkner) and the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil).
I am concerned about the number given to this bill. It seems to me that that is the number which the government uses to bring in bad legislation. I am sure that hon. members will recall that the last time we had to contend with a bill C-28 it was the bill which, in effect, restricted collective bargaining for civil servants.
I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Moose Jaw say that he would like to see this bill pass third reading today. I consider the bill to be nothing but a piece of window dressing on the part of the government. It does absolutely nothing for the autonomy of the north. I believe that the hon. member for Moose Jaw said that we would have to wait another four years before they-and I assume when he said they that he was referring to the people in the Northwest Territories-will get proper representation. I am quite sure that the many good members sitting on the N.W.T. Council would take offence at that remark, and I hope that that is not what the hon. member meant by the statement.
I would be more than happy to support a bill which would bring autonomy to the north. I have represented that beautiful part of the country in this House for a little over six years, and during that time I have been waiting and hoping that the government would bring in legislation giving us the autonomy we are seeking. This bill, however, does not do that, and that is why I do not think it should be treated so lightly. The bill in its
February 16, 1979

present state should not even be on the floor. If it had the substance which would bring some autonomy and a responsible government to the Northwest Territories, then I would be the first one on my feet to muster support for it, but not the way it is. All it does, as it stands, is put a few more seats on the territorial council.
If the government wishes to change the name from Northwest Territories Council to the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories, that is no problem. The only cost involved is to rewrite a few lines to change the act. Not too long ago I introduced a private members' bill in an attempt to do that very thing, but the government did not seem to get too excited, nor did they voice their support.
I made some statements about this proposed legislation when I became aware of it a few months back. I put out a press release stating my views. Basically the theme of that press release, which I put out in June, 1978, was that "bigger is not necessarily better." I am sure that there are a large number of people in the Northwest Territories who agree with me, although I know that the minister has been able to quote accurately some people who are in favour of this increase in the size of the Territorial council, and that would be fair enough if they were given more responsibility to handle some of the very important matters and questions which have to be answered.
Many hon. members will remember the recent news reports from the communities of Rae/Edzo in the Northwest Territories. It was a prime example of the drastic housing situation there that was brought to light through an outbreak of tuberculosis, a disease which is commonly associated with the poverty stricken people of the world. I have harped on this situation since I have been a member of this House, but what I have been saying on behalf of my people on matters of this nature have fallen on deaf ears.
Now the Liberal government and the party to my right here are willing to take a little piece of legislation, give it all these fancy-sounding, kind words, and say that it is good for the north, that the people up there are asking for it, and "we will give it an hour and a half or two hours on a Friday afternoon to put it through all three stages, and rubber stamp it." They feel that that will keep the people of the Northwest Territories quiet for a while and make it seem as though they are getting some autonomy.
No matter what the results are of the next election, whether we have a Conservative government or a Liberal government, the situation will remain the same.


Steve Eugene Paproski: No, no, Wally; it is not going to be the same.


Walter (Wally) Firth: You are willing to rubber-stamp it right now, and if you want the floor you can have it in just a few minutes.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order.


Walter (Wally) Firth: This is nothing but some silly window dressing to keep the people of the Northwest Territories quiet. I was saying earlier that no matter which government gets in, the
Northwest Territories Act
power will remain with the people in Ottawa. This bill does not give any autonomy to the people of the Northwest Territories, where there are some very major decisions to be made. There is some question about land claims and whether the Northwest Territories should be divided into two or three territories, as one area might be ready for provincial status before another. Some very good proposals have been put forward by native associations, and we should try to find answers to their questions regarding autonomy for the Northwest Territories.

Members of the Northwest Territories Council complain that they have to cover very large areas and that they experience difficulty in doing so. They believe that 15 members are not adequate. I know that very well myself, Mr. Speaker, and I made that point when I came here a few years ago. On behalf of the people of the Northwest Territories, I lobbied for an increase for federal representation and, as a result of my work, and with the support of many other people who are finally beginning to understand some of the problems of the area, there will be two federal members for the Northwest Territories after the next election.
Fully understanding the problems of trying to represent such a large area, I made a serious suggestion which I hope the government will take just as seriously. Indeed, I believe the Northwest Territories Council could implement my idea themselves. I suggested that members of the council should be elected on a full-time basis. As I understand it, they have the right to set their own salaries or stipends and operating expenses, so they could designate the positions as full-time as they are needed. The council only sits about four times a year, perhaps sometimes five, and for two or three weeks at a time. If the positions were made full-time perhaps that would even attract candidates of a higher calibre. I think this suggestion has fallen on deaf ears, however. Some people who cannot at present afford, for financial reasons, to run for council might be able to do so if the position were a full-time one. I reiterate that I do not believe that bigger is necessarily better in this case.
At present the colonial system operates in the Northwest Territories, as an appointed civil servant can, in effect, overrule elected members of council. As I understand it, the commissioner can withhold consent, which is much the same as the governor general or a lieutenant governor refusing royal assent to a bill. In my view, this is too much power for an appointed civil servant. I suggest that the bill should contain a clause to the effect that the commissioner be elected and I am sure this would bring more support for the bill.
What it amounts to in this day and age is a colonial situation in a country that has known democracy for a great many years. I believe that the Northwest Territories pays its own way, Mr. Speaker. This view may stir up a hornet's nest, of course, and I expect it will meet with disagreement from the other parties.
I should like to give some examples of areas where revenue comes in. For instance, there are two gold mines in Yellow-

February 16, 1979
Northwest Territories Act
knife, the Con mine and the Giant Yellowknife, and, of course, gold is a high-priced commodity at the moment. There is the Pine Point mine, a lead zinc operation. There is the Nanasivik operation in the Arctic which is a tungsten mine. There are the gas and oil wells at Norman Wells which have been operating for 40 years. There is a silver mine at Echo Bay and a gas pipeline coming out of Pointed Mountain. There is the fur industry, the commercial fishing industry, the business tax, some logging and personal income tax. There is great potential for gas and oil in the Liard area. There is great potential for agriculture. Many people are of the opinion that the north country is all ice and snow and therefore the chances of a good agricultural industry have not received the attention 1 believe they deserve.
I do not believe that we should have to prove we pay our own way before we can be given the responsibility of a fully elected government which is responsible to the people. I do not think democracy should have a dollar price tag on it. If provisions for this were made in the bill before us I would be more than happy to support it.
I should like now to comment on the position of members of the Conservative party, Mr. Speaker, who are on record as giving full support to Bill C-28. They are anxious to give it one or two hours in the House of Commons, rubber-stamp it, and hope that will keep the people of the Northwest Territories quiet for a while. That is different from the position put forward by the Progressive Conservative candidate for the Northwest Territories in the forthcoming election. Not long ago he made some comments about the situation which were reported in the Yellowknifer, the local newspaper, in November, 1977. Here is what the Progressive Conservative candidate for the western Arctic had to say:
Let's not kid ourselves, we do not have responsible government in the Northwest Territories. Here the commissioner is the government and he makes that plain for all to see. The system of having an advisory executive committee comprising both elected and appointed members is really just a sham and a farce.
People talk about responsible government as if it were responsible to have varying degrees of responsibility but this is pure nonsense.
The chief executive officer of the Northwest Territories is either responsible to the federal minister in Ottawa, or he is responsible to the people of the N.W.T. There's no in between ... It has to be Ottawa or the people.
Regardless of whether or not we have full provincial status, this 19th century colonial approach must be given up. The commissioner has to be chosen by and responsible to the people he supposedly serves. Nothing else will do.
That was the position of the Progressive Conservative candidate in the Northwest Territories. Therefore I was somewhat dismayed to hear the hon. member for Moose Jaw say that we should give all three readings to this bill, and get it over and done with in a short period of time. I believe the bill should go to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The committee should hear witnesses from the north. It could invite members of different organizations to come to Ottawa to present their case or, better still, the committee could travel to certain communities in the north and hear the views of the people of the Northwest Territories.

I know there are some who support this bill to increase the number. I have met with some of them. I have given a lot of thought to this. However, I certainly cannot support going through all readings of this bill in a short time. The topic of responsible government and autonomy for the north deserves much more time and very serious discussion by a lot more people than two or three speakers in this House trying to get the bill through in short order.
Another point I wish to touch on briefly is the special representative of the government, Mr. Drury, who travelled in the north and talked to a few people. If you look at some of the news articles, in fact you need only read the headlines, you will realize the people in the north are not happy with merely having an individual come and talk to them about this matter. The people of the north would like to see this topic discussed more seriously rather than this bit of window dressing for the Northwest Territories in a little two-clause bill.
That is about all I would like to say at this time. I want it clearly understood that I am not in favour of merely rubber stamping this bill and letting it go through the House in speedy order. It should be referred to the appropriate committee for very serious consideration.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words this afternoon on Bill C-28. This is a short and seemingly innocuous bill since it hardly covers one sheet of paper. Nevertheless, it is certainly very important. While listening a few moments ago to the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth), we could sense his concern, Mr. Speaker, over the lack of seriousness of this bill in view of the needs of the people in the territories. I think his concerns are warranted because he can certainly be considered a man well aware of the problems existing in his riding, the territories, problems which are larger than for the rest of Canada and which concern diverse regions with resources that can hardly be imagined from afar.
As several other government bills, Mr. Speaker, this one has had a long period of gestation. In 1974, the hon. Jean Chretien, who was then minister of Indian affairs and northern development argued in favour of such a move. This is what he said at the time, and I quote:
We must consider the need to increase the number of council members to better reflect the population changes.
That was the opinion of Jean Chretien when he was minister. In 1977 the Council of the Northwest Territories submitted to the federal government a brief entitled "Priorities of the North" in which it also called for an amendment to the act. One could read, and I quote:
The legislative assembly of the Northwest Territories should have the power to determine the number of its members, which should not be less than 15 or more than 25 as is the case for the Yukon. Those amendments should be in effect before the next election.
February 16, 1979

And we know that 1979 should be an election year in the territories. So this bill arouses the interest of both the federal government and the territories concerned. Why that double interest? Before I answer that question, I believe it would be appropriate to get the whole picture by describing briefly the status of the territories and the council. For all practical purposes the Northwest Territories are under the trusteeship of the federal government. A commissioner appointed by Ottawa looks after it. He gets his instructions from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Mr. Stuart Hodgson is currently the commissioner.
The territories have, as we saw, a council made up of 15 members now. For the first time in 1975 that council became a truly elective council with a majority of native representation. In addition, there is an executive council where three of the 15 councillors and three officials of the federal government sit.
Under the legislation governing the territories, its government has jurisdiction over so-called local powers: education, social development, penitentiaries, administration of justice. For its part, the federal government takes on several provincial responsibilities: construction and maintenance of roads, lands and forests, health and so on. The situation created by the federal trusteeship, the distribution of powers as well as the ethnic diversity give the territories three possible options as to its constitutional future: (1) the status quo, (2) the nation, (3) the province. The status quo. The federal government would indeed like to keep the territories under its thumb. The discovery of substantial reserves of natural gas means an additional source of income for the central government. If the territories were given the status of a province, their income would then go to the provincial government and not to Ottawa as is now the case for Alberta, for example. Indeed, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) clearly stated that it was out of the question that the territories should become provinces. The fact is that other factors plead in favour of the status quo, namely the lack of sound economic basis and the sparse population.
The Indian nation. During the 1975 election which ended up with the creation of a council made up of a majority of natives, two Indians were elected. These representatives, namely Mr. James Wahshee, President of the Indian Association of the Northwest Territories and one of his friends resigned shortly after and were replaced by two Metis. In fact, they handed in their resignation to stress their desire to form an independent Indian nation within Canada. To them, the council does not serve their cause and the Canadian Tapirisat Inuit Association has similar purposes. Their position and that of the National Indian Brotherhood were submitted this summer or two summers ago to the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the Canadian Constitution. The Territorial Council was completely opposed to this plan. It said the following:
The concept of separate analyses which divide people according only to their ethnic background and automatically denies the political rights of the minorities
Northwest Territories Act
goes against not only Canadian political traditions, but also the "Canadian" constitution.
This concept does not agree either with the ideas of the right hon. Prime Minister.
Thirdly, there is provincial status. The idea of giving the status of a province to the territories seems to be very popular in the council. This transformation has been considered for several years. In 1975, when the council became an elective body, many people considered this the first step towards a responsible government. Mr. Arnold McCallum, president of the Territorial Council, is a supporter of provincial status. He submitted a brief to the joint committee last summer in which he listed a few of his reasons for requesting the status of a province.
First of all, in 1966, the Carrothers commission on the evolution of government in the Northwest Territories stated in one of its recommendations that all Canadian citizens were entitled to take part in the institutions of a responsible government under the terms of the Canadian constitution. It also stated that the Canadian citizens living in northern Canada should be able to play the same role in their government as the residents of the provinces. If such was the situation in 1966, it still is in 1978. Secondly, can there be a democracy when the commissioner of the territories can proceed without consulting the elected representatives and a federal minister can act without consulting in any way the Northwest Territories? Thirdly, we are the only Canadian legislative body which cannot set the number of its ridings. This is not to the credit of our democratic system. In fact, it has been said that many important changes will affect the territories in the more or less immediate future. Decisions therefore have to be made and they have to be made by a responsible government.
In the meantime, the federal government decided to study the situation. The Hon. C. M. Drury was directed to enquire on the constitutional aspects of land claims. At the time of his appointment, the right hon. Prime Minister said this and I quote:
The government was not favourable to the creation of new political divisions in the north ... essentially based on racial differences and direct relations with the federal government.
We may wonder, Mr. Speaker, what will be the purpose of this enquiry if conclusions are drawn in advance. In light of this brief summary, we can identify the objectives of this bill. First of all, the federal government answers the many requests of the territorial council by granting it a larger representation but without more powers. Somehow, it puts it in the same situation or even in a worse situation than that presently faced by provinces because of the tendency of the federal government to centralize all powers in Ottawa. So, Mr. Speaker, a larger representation of the territorial council might be of some benefit to it, as it might assume its responsibilities a little better or a little easier. Yet if they are not granted additional powers it will become very difficult because I think that when

February 16, 1979
Northwest Territories Act
somebody tries to do something, when he attempts to discharge his responsibilities he should have the power to do so.
So, Mr. Speaker, I think that at this time it is not enough to grant them more representatives on the territorial council; they should enjoy additional powers so that these representatives may better discharge their responsibilities. Secondly, by agreeing to one of the demands of the council the federal government is somehow trying to appease that body in its claims for provincial status at least for the time being. They are trying to make it wait by applying liniment on the wound in the hope that they will be patient a few more years. Thirdly, by granting additional representation, the government hopes that it will show itself more sympathetic to the people, namely that there will be more natives on that council be they Inuit or Indian people. It is also an attempt to put an end to or shelve Indian claims for independent nationhood. The government hopes that they will forget their objective and come around to its views.
So, Mr. Speaker, it is quite certain that by presenting this bill the government is seeking self-serving objectives. What remains to be seen is whether these objectives will answer the expectations of the members of the council and the residents of the Northwest Territories. I agree with my colleague from the Northwest Territories and I think that we should not be too quick in passing this bill. It should perhaps be passed at second reading stage today, then referred to a committee so that representatives and organized groups from the Northwest Territories may be heard before the committee and spell out what they want and what they expect from the central government.


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, because of the understanding which exists-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I must inform hon. members that recognizing the minister at this time will close the debate.


James Hugh Faulkner: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Because of that understanding I will take another occasion upon which to respond to some of the points which have been raised in the debate. However, there are one or two points which I believe it is important I should deal with now. One is the assertion of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) that we are not involving the YPG on the Northwest Territories government in the land claims discussions. I should like to say that as a result of concern expressed about the nature of consultation in the past I have agreed to develop memoranda of understanding with the governments of the Yukon and of the Territories which would lay out the nature of the participation of those governments in the land claim's discussions. This showed clear up an issue which has been of some concern to the north.

The hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) suggests that this bill is window dressing, and he argues that autonomy and responsible government require much more time. He must recognize that it is precisely because the questions of autonomy and responsible government are now under review in the Northwest Territories that more time is required. More study, and the completion of the work of the special representative are required. It is precisely because of those things that this bill has such modest and limited intentions. I think the hon. member would be the first to admit that if we went into the areas the hon. member referred to at this point without consultations being completed, without the work of the special representative being completed, and without adequate consultation with the native groups and the territorial council, they would all have objected to this bill. The reason this bill is supported in the north is that its objectives are limited to the one area where there appears to be general support. There appears to be general support for the proposal that the size of the council be increased in number from 15 to 22.
The other question raised by the hon. member are not being avoided by this bill. It is just that no one agrees that we are ready to address those questions at this time. However, I do not think there is any doubt in anyone's mind that next year, following the completion of the work of the special representative, we will then be in a position to conduct a major review of the Northwest Territories Act, at which point we will deal with the substantive questions the hon. member has raised.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the minister a question. When the memorandum of understanding is completed, will he circulate it to members on this side of the House?


James Hugh Faulkner: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to do that.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
February 16, 1979

Hon. Bud Cullen (for the Minister of Transport) moved: that Bill C-17, to promote public safety and the protection of the environment in the transportation of dangerous goods, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on behrlf of my colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), I should say that he is in Newfoundland, a very important part of this country, as I am sure my hon. colleagues opposite would concede, signing agreements which I think will be for the benefit of that province.
Canada's growing trade relations with other countries on other continents, combined with rapid technological change in the transportation industry and the increasing use of dangerous substances in common manufacturing processes, have generated an urgent need to regulate the transportation of dangerous goods.
The wide variety of legislative instruments which are currently being used to regulate the transportation of dangerous goods has been proclaimed by various levels of government at various times and in connection with individual modes of transport or specific goods. Obviously it cannot be claimed that, even taken as a whole, they will provide a satisfactory method of ensuring that these goods will enter, pass through, and leave the transportation system safely or economically. On the contrary, manufacturers, shippers and carriers of dangerous goods are at present faced with a confusing maze of regulations, depending on the means of transport being used and the places to or from which goods are being carried. Canada is not alone in having to face the need to resolve this problem, but we can take some pride in saying that with the valuable support of the provinces and of the industries concerned we are among the world leaders in formulating multimodal legislation in this area.
Bill C-17, to promote public safety and the protection of the environment in the transportation of dangerous goods, will impose fairly severe penalties on those involved in the transportation of dangerous goods who seek to avoid their responsibilities. That in this country such persons are remarkably few in number is strikingly demonstrated by the absence of serious accidents involving the transportation of dangerous goods in Canada. It is no longer possible, however, to rely solely on domestic standards to maintain this safety record. In any event, there is one area of activity where no uniform safety requirements are in force in this country, namely, highway transport.
Dealing with the international aspects first, it is obvious that, just as standards for container safety cannot be left to individual nations to determine, standards governing the packaging, marking and methods of handling dangerous goods must be international in nature.
Transportation of Dangerous Goods Since 1957 a committee of experts on the transport of dangerous goods has been reporting to the economic and social council of the United Nations and making recommendations dealing with the matters to which I have just referred. Canada has been an active member on that committee, and there is now a substantial area of international agreement on the standards to be applied, sufficent to warrant major legislation by the Government of Canada. Such legislation would establish norms and provide for detailed regulations setting out the duties and responsibilities of all those involved, from the moment when goods are prepared for shipment until they arrive at their final destination.
As I have said, highway transport raises special problems within Canada as well as between Canada and the United States. The problems which arise within Canada result from the fact that for the most part highway traffic and highway safety legislation is within provincial jurisdiction, as are incidental laws relating to such matters as labour safety, environmental protection, and emergency response planning. As a result, different standards may be required by each province. This problem is compounded by the fact that the United States has its own standards, which may be partly acceptable or totally acceptable in some provinces but not in others, and may or may not conflict with Canadian federal laws and regulations.
There has been a great deal of co-operation between our two countries, chiefly by means of reciprocal agreements to accept the standards of the other country for packaging and labelling. There are, however, some areas where less easily soluble problems have begun to arise, for example, the Canadian and Quebec requirements that all shipping documents and package markings be in French and English-a characteristic which does not commend itself to the United States-and the Canadian desire to adopt World Health Organization toxicity standards, which would lead to more substances being regulated in Canada than in the United States.
Uniform legislation within Canada would obviously facilitate the negotiation of mutually acceptable arrangements with the United States in these and other areas. To the extent that Canada as a country can implement United Nations standards, the need for uniform rules for all modes of transport for industries involved in the manufacturing and shipping of dangerous goods can also be met.
This is an ideal shared by industry and government alike, and is demonstrated by the clearly expressed desire of all concerned for consistent and comprehensive regulation in this field, a desire which contrasts markedly with the current trend to criticize government intervention in the private sector.
At first glance, some affected parties might have reacted adversely to the idea that their paper work apparently was going to be increased and their overhead costs escalated by the introduction of yet another piece of transport legislation. In fact, they have for the most part realized that the effect of the proposed transportation of dangerous goods act and regulations will be the very opposite. Where now three or more documents may be required if goods are being transferred

February 16, 1979
Transportation of Dangerous Goods from one mode of transport to another, across provincial boundaries, and on board ships or planes destined for overseas, the new legislation will reduce the number of shipping documents required to the minimum. Similarly, marking and labelling of packages and containers will be simplified, as will packaging requirements themselves, so that goods will not have to be unpacked and repacked or unlabelled and relabelled every time they are transferred from one place to another or from one means of transport to another.
In sum, the bill contains provisions which will enable safety standards, procedures and marks to be applied uniformly to all classes of dangerous goods, regardless of the mode or modes of transport by which they may be travelling. It takes into account the duties and responsibilities of all of those involved in the preparation, handling and transportation of such products, and imposes on them whatever liabilities are appropriate to their role in the transportation process. Indeed, for the first time, it will make those who buy and sell dangerous goods as responsible as the carriers traditionally have been for the safe transport of those products.
Conformity with the regulations and standards which will follow from the passage of this legislation will be enforced by specially trained inspectors, some employed directly by Transport Canada and some by other government departments at the federal, provincial and municipal levels. These inspectors will have fairly extensive powers of inspection and detention of potentially hazardous goods or packages and will be able to impose fines in certain circumstances. They will also be in a position to take all possible measures to contain the effects of accidents or incidents involving dangerous goods in transport.
The bill thus represents one of three prongs of a comprehensive safety program for the transportation of dangerous goods, the first being a legislative instrument designed to deal with the serious consequences of transporting dangerous goods in an unsafe manner. The second prong of the safety program will be the development of multi-modal regulations under the authority of the bill to ensure that dangerous goods are properly identified as being dangerous and that they enter, pass through, and leave the transportation system in a safe and economic way. The third prong will be the development of an emergency response program in co-operation with other federal agencies and with the provinces.
It goes without saying that legislation cannot prevent accidents. But it can reduce them by deterring people from taking unnecessary risks, and it can mitigate ensuing damages by enabling emergency response personnel to react in the most appropriate manner when such accidents occur.
I referred earlier, Mr. Speaker, to a common desire for regulation in this area. That this desire is shared by the Government of Canada with the governments of the provinces and the industries involved has been demonstrated over the past four or five years by an unprecedented degree of consultation and co-operation between all three in attempting to formulate mutually acceptable legislation and regulations. That it is

shared with the United States and other major trading partners has been demonstrated by the concentrated and fruitful discussions that have taken place within the framework of specialized agencies of the United Nations, such as the International Maritime Consultative Organization, the International Civil Aviation Organization, the Economic and Social Council, the Economic Commission for Europe, and between specialists in Transport Canada and the United States department of transport.
Now a third party may be said to have intervened: the general public. As a result of the publicity given to the increasing number of transportation accidents and incidents involving dangerous goods, there is a growing public awareness of the dangers to human life and to the environment presented by new and ever more powerful and potentially destructive chemicals travelling across the country. This awareness is giving rise to frequent questions directed to Transport Canada to find out how the transportation of such goods is regulated in this country.
I hope that I have persuaded hon. members of the vital need for uniform legislation governing the transportation of dangerous goods in Canada, both from the point of view of safety and with respect to the maintenance of good and prosperous trade relations with other countries. The Government of Canada has played a very active part in inter-provincial and international attempts to establish uniform safety standards, and it is in our best interest to proceed with the enabling legislation contained in Bill C-17.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, at the outset may I say that our party supports the principle and therefore the major objective of this piece of legislation. I believe it is fair to say as well that we acknowledge the need for such a piece of legislation, given the fact that there has been an increasing number of fatal and near fatal incidents involving dangerous goods, which unquestionably highlights the need for a co-ordinated law which is put before us in the form of this bill now, and to ensure that the public interest will be assured and that the movement of dangerous goods will not harm the Canadian public.
I would like to say also that we on this side of the House are disturbed and disappointed by the piecemeal approach of the government relative to transportation since the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) has taken over the helm. We believe that we should have before us the comprehensive new policy thrust which had been introduced in the form of Bill C-33 back in 1976. A similar bill was reintroduced in the form of Bill C-20. We have had a series of white papers and policy statements advanced by the Minister of Transport as a result of the government's new policy thrust, but none of those documents has ever been referred to a committee for consideration. Perhaps they were discussed only at a committee meeting or two.
I want to say to you, sir, that the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications is probably one of the most underutilized and underemployed committees of the House, in spite of the fact that transportation is key to the attainment of
February 16, 1979

balanced economic growth in this country, key to the establishment of a sound industrial base, and key to the provision of some semblance of national unity. Yet the subject matter has not progressed from the order paper, has not been considered by the committee, and we have not had the opportunity to obtain the views and opinions of the numerous people engaged and interested in transportation in this country, the shippers, the carriers, and everyone who has a vital interest in transportation.
We think it would have been much more appropriate to deal with the total package, to have a comprehensive program and then to put the respective pieces of legislation together, such as the ports act. There has been a suggestion that we should proceed with the ports act. Also, in our view, we should proceed with the amendments to the National Transportation Act before we proceed with this bill because it contains the outline, the basic policy guidelines and the framework of a comprehensive national transportation system in this country. We think that the National Transportation Act requires a substantial amount of debate because there are regional differences on the matter, there are various freight rate anomalies, and safety in the movement of goods is but one element. So we think it would have been more appropriate to deal with it in the orderly fashion I suggest rather than in the way in which we are proceeding.
I know that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) has no control over this, that he has simply submitted this bill on behalf of his colleague, and I certainly do not fault him, but I think that that message should ring very clearly in the minds of government members because we have not proceeded in an effective fashion in dealing with the transportation problems in our country. We have a serious grain transportation problem and serious problems relative to air safety, so it seems to me that a clear and co-ordinated transportation policy should be put in place. We have a committee of the House, and we can utilize the institution of parliament in a much more effective way than we have done to deal with these important issues.
I said at the outset of my remarks that we approve of the principle of the bill before us and indeed of its objectives, but I must say that we insist that these objectives be met without imposing excessive costs or hardships, and with the minimum of restraint put upon the operations of the carriers and the shippers. It must be recognized by all concerned-because we consider this to be a very important piece of legislation-that this bill is really an extension of the Criminal Code, not merely a transportation law. Although the minister indicated that this was enabling legislation, I suspect, although I am not a lawyer, that it tends to minimize its enabling aspects. This bill has many implications, and the impact of its regulations will have a critical effect. So it is absolutely necessary for the regulations which will be prescribed to be reasonable, well-founded, and understood, and that the implications with respect to their enforcement be clearly considered.
The minister spoke about the importance of the bill's international aspects. While this is true, we must not lose sight of
Business of the House
the fact that for the time being, and perhaps for some time in the future, our major trading partner is and will be the United States.
Before adopting any set of regulations we should consult to the fullest with the industry and the provinces. The key to the effectiveness of this piece of legislation certainly is inherent in the regulations. The provinces must make major contributions in determining what the regulations will be because of the enabling aspect of it and the clear constitutional responsibility of the provinces.
That brings me to the dangerous goods code, and perhaps I might call it four o'clock before dealing with that subject.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed to private members' hour, I wonder if there was not an agreement yesterday that we would pass without debate today the motion to refer a document entitled "The Management of Canada's Nuclear Wastes" to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works. If that is the case, and if there is a disposition to carry out that undertaking, perhaps it can be done now.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, respecting the point of order, there was such an agreement. We would be prepared to do that now.
While I am on my feet I should like to mention that there was some discussion earlier in the day concerning the possibility of the government making available later this day the bill respecting the allocation of petroleum and energy, if that is the appropriate way to describe it, and if I recall the minister's words correctly. The government was to attempt to make available that bill to the House, to introduce it and distribute it so that it can be studied.
While the parliamentary secretary is dealing with the matter of the reference to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred, he might tell us whether the government will introduce that bill now. As we mentioned earlier, we are prepared to revert to introduction of bills in order to do that. We were left with the impression that that might be done this afternoon. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary can inform the House.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, concerning the motion to refer the document entitled "The Management of Canada's Nuclear Wastes" to the appropriate committee, an agreement was arrived at yesterday. Thus, that is not a problem.
Concerning the request of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, I understand he expected the bill to be introduced today with the consent of the House.


Walter David Baker: Yes.

February 16, 1979
Energy


Yvon Pinard: It is obvious the bill is not completely ready now. Perhaps it will be completed before five o'clock. If it is, I am sure the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council will come into the House and seek unanimous consent to introduce it. I cannot make any commitment on that because I do not know if the bill will be ready before five o'clock.
Also while I am on my feet, there is unanimous consent to proceed with the consideration of Bill C-214 and that the preceding item numbers be allowed to stand.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, the understanding is that we will proceed with item No. 7 in the name of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and take the appropriate steps to move that to the next stage before proceeding with the consideration of Bill C-214. I think that is the understanding.


REFERENCE TO STANDING COMMITTEE OF DOCUMENT &quot;THE MANAGEMENT OF CANADA'S NUCLEAR WASTES&quot; AND EVIDENCE ADDUCED THEREON
Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: That the document entitled "The Management of Canada's Nuclear Wastes'', tabled Tuesday, November 22, 1977 (Sessional Paper No. 303-4/96), together with the evidence adduced thereon in the Third Session of the Thirtieth Parliament, be referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions, and private bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is item No. 9 standing in the name of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Siddon) stood by unanimous agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is item No. 10 standing in the name of the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) stood by unanimous agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is item No. 13 standing in the name of the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) stood by unanimous agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


CANADA SUNSET ACT
J. Michael Forrestall: that Bill C-214, to establish a Sunset Law for Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
He said: Mr. Speaker, a year ago this month I had an opportunity, during debate on a motion regarding the role and scope of government activity in society and the economy, to speak on the subject of sunset laws. At that time I read into the record a suggested draft bill on the sunset concept. The bill we are discussing today is primarily the same as that earlier draft. As a private member's bill, of course it is limited by the constraints which restrict all private members' bills. Nevertheless, I feel it provides a solid base to discuss a pragmatic and promising approach to the problem of increasingly overgrown and unresponsive government.
The proliferation of federal agencies, commissions, boards, offices and even ministries, which have sprouted forth in such numbers in recent years, must be brought under some kind of control and scrutiny. The problem with these agencies and programs, which perhaps were established originally for a specific and worth-while purpose, is that they seem to defy the laws of nature. They never die natural deaths; they seem to acquire a life of their own. Even if they were set up originally with a narrowly defined purpose, they tend to generate new functions and responsibilities almost by an unconscious reflex action. Over time, what was once a responsive and flexible agency can become a tangled labyrinth, snarled in its own complexity and buried beneath the weight of "proper" procedures.
I feel the sunset law approach is essential, but it is not the only instrument available to us. It is essential if we are to control some of the bureaucratic sprawl. Such legislation would provide for the periodic termination of government agencies and programs unless they are able to justify their continued existence. The sunset concept involves setting fixed dates for the automatic termination of government agencies and programs in order to force their full-scale review. If this review shows they have served the purpose for which they were created, then a positive legislative act, resolution or some other positive act would be required to extend the life of a particular agency or program. However, if one was deemed to be no longer relevant, useful or necessary, then it would be either modified or allowed to terminate.

February 16, 1979

I do not think it is necessary to go into the mechanics or major elements of the bill because I spelled these out in some detail last February. In addition, I believe the bill itself is clear and relatively straightforward, and for this I owe a vote of thanks to the parliamentary counsel's office for its help and advice. However, there are two points I think should be made and perhaps dealt with at least briefly at this time.
First, the schedules attached to the bill are designed as a suggested format or timetable, if you will, for carrying out the mandatory review of existing programs and agencies. It may be decided that the committee, which I have suggested should carry out such a review, would be in a better position to establish such a timetable. If so, I am sure that would be more than acceptable to the concept and principles we have before us for consideration now.
The second point of clarification pertains to the need for competent support staff assigned to the committee to assist it in undertaking the broad based evaluation of programs and agencies which is necessary. Because of the restrictions on private members' legislation I could not write this very important and absolutely necessary feature into my bill. As you know, we are not allowed to suggest the spending or the raising of money. However, if this House is to adopt the sunset concept, then the designated committee or procedure, whatever, must be properly equipped to do the job.
In this context I recognize there are many people who suggest the job of reviewing each and every program and agency of government might in itself create an enormous bureaucratic burden. We will not know that unless we try. Program evaluation as such has not been seen in my experience to bring an end to existing programs within this government, programs that are no longer fulfilling or meeting the reason for their establishment in the first place.
As the size of government increases, so increases the amount and the level of mandatory funding. Administrative costs escalate, and there is a decrease in the amount of money available for new purposes and new needs. This is particularly true in a growing and expanding country such as Canada with the many geographically related problems we face. The type of legislation which I propose is a means to balance funds allocated for agencies or programs established years ago with new needs and new priorities facing Canada in the 1970s and 1980s.
As money grows more and more scarce, essential programs and services must be run more economically and efficiently. The sunset process could provide a way to ensure the greatest control of and accountability for all public funds.
However, sunset legislation should not be viewed as merely the means of cutting or reducing government spending. Though certainly one of the goals of this approach and of this form of legislation, that is not the sole objective. Equally as important is the need to make government again truly answerable to the people of this country. Canadians are understandably beginning to feel that they are becoming the servants and
Sunset Laws
not the beneficiairies of our form of government. Perhaps this feeling is strongest at this time of year when we are forced to undergo that unique Canadian form of water torture known as filing you income tax return. It is not just tax forms, it is the broad gamut of government, which has become so complex, that it has forced us to create additional offices simply to explain to Canadians where they can obtain assistance and understanding of the functions and roles of agencies and programs being undertaken by the government.
As my esteemed and very distinguished colleague, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), has said, perhaps it is too late for us to regain control of the machinery of government and its complexity. I differ with him to this degree; I do not think it is too late for us to try. He may be right, but I hope not.
The government has complicated the life of the small businessman to such an extent it has had to create a special office for the "reduction of paper burden". My secretary has on her phone a piece of paper which says "If you do not understand it, call me and we will tell you." This is an office to explain paper burden. Good God, what are we coming to? This office even supplies little red stickers with its telephone number that can be stuck on the phone for quick reference. Can you imagine this paper burden number stuck there on the telephone beside other emergency numbers for the police, the fire department, the ambulance and so on?


An hon. Member:: They have the biggest Xerox machine imaginable.


J. Michael Forrestall: The biggest Xerox machine in the world could not keep up with this. We are in some degree of trouble when we reach this stage. Just to illustrate for a moment or two, let me refer to the fact that one of the reasons for the establishment of PetroCan was to create an agency of government that could deal with the governments of other countries for the express purpose of obtaining crude oil and its delivery. As you know, this country is not secure in its oil supply for reasons that are totally inexplicable. We are told on the one hand by one industry that we have generations of self-sufficiency but we do not have a distribution system. Millions of people living east of this Ottawa Valley where we are sitting today are at the whim of foreign nationals in respect of security of home heating fuels and gasoline. This year we will pay close to $4 billion to foreign-controlled cartels to move our trade goods into this country and our exports out, all of which is totally out of our control.
PetroCan has not secured one gallon of oil for the people of eastern Canada since its establishment. Good God, that was what it was established for. I am suggesting, not in any forceful way, that PetroCan should be thrown out the window. I think it should be dismantled or, if it is not, it should work for the purpose for which it was brought into being, and that is to secure oil deliveries to eastern Canadian refineries. I just mention this as a typical example. Had PetroCan been under the scrutiny of a competent standing committee of this House, whose purpose and function it was to review its role,

February 16, 1979
Sunset Laws
the work it is doing, and to ascertain whether it was meeting the principles and concepts for which it had been established, perhaps today refineries in eastern Canada might have the ability to say to the people of Atlantic Canada, "You will get your fuel oil, your home heating fuels and your gasoline for next winter." As it stands now, we do not know that. I do not know the reason for this either.
I do not want to be accused of talking out my own bill, but I do want very briefly to mention one other potentially very positive aspect of sunset legislation, and that is the ability of the legislation to involve ordinary people directly in the review process. Perhaps this could provide some real meaning to that almost forgotten slogan "participatory democracy". In any event it would seem natural that the designated committee would want to hear from those individuals and organizations directly affected by a particular program or agency. By appearing before a committee these groups could offer an insight into the effectiveness of certain government activities which we seldom receive.
The secrecy surrounding government activities in recent years is appalling on its own, and I do not think that I need to take up the time of the House with a dissertation on some of the sad examples of the consequences of secrecy. I say that we should put these programs and agencies up for review in a public forum responsible to this chamber, and made up of members from all sides of the House. The government should expose itself to the people of the country, particularly those who are directly affected; then they would have some assistance in the formulation of future program policies.
In summing up, I hope that hon. members will feel that the subject matter of this bill deserves further study. 1 firmly believe that the sunset approach offers a practical means of ensuring that public funds are economically and efficiently spent. It is my objective as a Progressive Conservative member of parliament, and it has been for the 14 years I have been a member of this House, to look for new ways in an attempt to balance our budget. It does not necessarily have to be sunset law, but I ask hon. members to take a look at the proposed bill and what is implied in it, to look at their daily work and the mail which comes across their desks, at the time and energy spent in responding to that mail, and to think for a moment of the time, energy and dollars consumed in the ministers' offices to secure answers for constituents, and then make a judgment about some approach to the proliferation of agencies, programs and departments and, indeed, even ministries which we are faced with today, so that we do not take quite ten years before we get around to doing something useful about it.
I want economy and efficiency, and one of the ways to get it within the agencies and programs of this government is through the responsibility and accountability of them to the public. It is also a means of involving Canadians directly in those areas of government which affect them most, and this, in my view, is very important.

I have one final comment. Some eight or ten years ago I proposed, not a new concept to the western world, to this chamber, and I have done so in every parliamentary session since 1969-1970-the concept of an independent accident investigation commission. The other day the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) finally allowed, perhaps because of the heat he was under with respect to standards of safety in transport in this country, the introduction of a bill which emulates the one that I had put before this chamber so many times in recent years. I do not mind waiting seven years, eight years or nine years-now it will probably be ten years-for a good concept to find its way into legislation, but I hope, for the sake of the Canadian economy, and to cope with a growing, sometimes almost unmanageable labyrinth of agencies and programs, that it will not take this long for members of this chamber to recognize that there is some validity in this concept.


Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking on this bill I have decided to take a pragmatic approach. I do not think that it will work. It will not work as it is now presented, for a variety of reasons. For instance, the workload it would impose on parliamentarians would be overwhelming, and diverse opinions from diverse public groups would cloud the issues which would be fundamental to any review process. Sheer work volume would make reviews superficial and ineffective, and forward looking futuristic type programs vital in a changing society would get short shrift in favour of w hat was appealing on a short-term basis.
There are, in my opinion, many other reasons equally compelling that militate against the proposal advanced in this legislation.


J. Michael Forrestall: It is a good idea.


Albert Béchard: Beyond the negative aspects, there is the other very practical question as to whether it is necessary. I suggest to hon. members that it is not. The government has mechanisms-they have been mentioned by others-and it has the authority, by virtue of its majority, to review any program or any project that it deems has outlived its usefulness. So where does this leave the proposed legislation? It leaves it in the position of being unworkable and undesirable.
I would like, Mr. Speaker, to add substance to these rather bald statements to show why this legislation is impractical for this nation at this time, even though the intent is laudable. Sunset legislation provides a predetermined termination date. In other words, before any project is ever launched, someone has planned its demise unless, of course, it can be demonstrated somewhere down the line that it should be kept alive. In isolation, that seems to me to be a fairly inflexible and somewhat illogical approach. In fairness, though, this proposal is not so much to eliminate programs but to evaluate them, and the termination date is simply a mechanism to force that into happening.
There are other problems with this legislation. This enforced evaluation system on a predetermined schedule is first cousin
February 16, 1979

to zero-base budgeting. Zero-base budgeting is the buzz word which came along with President Carter in the United States and which, if hon. members have been following its progression, has not been getting the attention it did only one or two years ago. I think this is because some people in the United States have recognized that this approach can only work under certain circumstances.
Zero-base budgeting means exactly what it says, that each year the manager goes back to zero and builds his program from there. It is a tool to analyse and evaluate project effectiveness, just as this sunset legislation is designed to force analysis and evaluation of projects in Canada. The projects then are ranked and fitted in with the money which is available.
In a Harvard Business Review article entitled "Where does zero-base budgeting work?", James D. Suver and Ray L. Brown quoted the following definition as the most concise:
Perhaps the essence of zero-base budgeting is simply that an agency provides a defence of its budget request that makes no reference to the level of previous appropriations.
They go on to say that all definitions of ZBB "express one common thought." The manager must be able to justify .each activity's projected level of expenditures in total, and no level is taken for granted. They went on to say:
In this light, zero-base budgeting becomes just another management tool, which can be used to review, analyse and evaluate budget requests.
What is really being discussed in this bill is the development of a management tool, but like zero-base budgeting, the overriding problem is the unwieldy and monumental task of reviewing thousands of what are described as decision packages each year.
Can you imagine the horrendous bottleneck that would be created for the parliamentary process in this country? Every program would have to be treated the same. Members could not simply pick and choose those that tickle their fancy because that, in my opinion, would be a dereliction of duty. Many uninteresting projects are vital to the well-being of our nation and need the same level of attention as the glamour issues. Members therefore would have a tremendous addition to their daily work load which, given the sheer volume, would undermine the fundamental objectives of the program.
But in addition to that criticism of overwhelming volume, there is the very real problem of passing judgment on a whole host of issues that are advanced by extremely talented specialists. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that I would want to have a considerable amount of expertise if I were placed in the position of having to weigh the merits of a program geared to oil resource development or coal resource development, knowing only one of the two could be funded. This is only one example in an almost endless list of possibilities.
Add to that problem of acquiring basic knowledge the companion issue raised by my colleagues: the influence of pressure groups. Suppose that the coal industry had an exceedingly effective organization promoting its interest and that the
Sunset Laws
oil producers, being fragmented by a whole lot of internal bickering, had an ineffective voice. What would happen? Would the judgment of those conducting the reviews be impaired by the selective evidence they would be receiving? Maybe not, but I believe all members would agree that it is possible.
Put that in the context of social services. Would the services for the aged and the poor suffer because they are ill-equipped to mount the kind of pressure that a more wealthy segment of society could mount? Remember, Mr. Speaker, the process requires ranking of priorities to fit within a predetermined financial framework.
From an effectiveness standpoint, then, Mr. Speaker, there is room for concern. Let us look at the efficiency feature. Sunset legislation requires that a re-evaluation take place at a specific time. It does not matter that it is obvious to all concerned that the program is worth-while and should be continued-it must be evaluated. That opens the door to a host of problems, including grandstanding and electioneering on the thin pretext of examining proposed expenditures. It really is not a very efficient way of dealing with the intent of this legislation.
Because of the similarity between sunset legislation and the zero-based budgeting concept practised in the United States, I would like to borrow from their experience. While some find zero-based budgeting a good tool, there is also evidence that many programs receive routine endorsement because there is not time for appropriate evaluation. Some programs never are serious contenders for termination. In Canada, these could include national defence, family allowances and national revenue. No new evaluation system would reverse the perception of the timeliness of these programs, even if inefficiencies were revealed.
I would like to quote some of the comments from those who should know in the United States. Sunset laws, and the zero-based budgeting that it implies, are not magic wands that will solve problems overnight. No one claims that they are. James D. Suver and Ray L. Brown, whom I quoted a moment ago, had this to say:
But are users of the technique happy with it? Phyrr said that Texas Instruments was happy with it. .. The city of Wilmington, Delaware found it useful and intends to continue using it...
The experience of the Department of Agriculture with its ground-up budget in 1962 was also mixed. Interviews with every high-level person who was intimately involved with the effort revealed that few decisions were made and savings were insignificant. However, other benefits were reported by almost one half of those interviewed ... The experience of the state of Georgia seems similar. A survey of department heads and their budget analysts concluded that there were three primary advantages associated with that state's use of zero-base budgeting:
1.	The establishment of a financial planning phase prior to budget preparation.
2.	An improvement in the quality of management information.
3.	An increase in the budget involvement of personnel at the activity level.
The survey cited three disadvantages as well.
1.	An increase in time and effort, required for budget preparation-"This is a very serious problem.''
2.	A contention that the new system had not significantly affected the allocation of funds ...
3336

February 16, 1979
Sunset Laws
3.	An ineffectiveness of the decision-package ranking approach to meet changes in the level of funding.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is the implementation problem. This kind of legislation cannot be introduced overnight and the introduction process presents serious problems.
Senator Muskie, who proposed a sunset law in the United States, is quoted as saying that "pilot testing would inevitably require selecting out certain programs or agencies for the initial trial runs." This, Muskie believes, "would jeopardize the principle of neutrality, thereby conceivably making the process politically unworkable."
As hon. members know, this whole subject of sunset and similar legislation is being examined by the Royal Commission on Financial Management and Accountability. The government will examine closely the findings of that commission and consider carefully any recommendations that may be forthcoming.
I can assure hon. members, however, that this government is too concerned about expenditures and program effectiveness to sit on its collective hands, waiting for a commission report. Many initiatives have already been taken to meet the kind of objectives I believe the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) had in mind when he proposed this legislation. The roles of the Auditor General and the Comptroller General have been defined to ensure a measure of cost-effectiveness adjudication.
Performance measurement would quickly identify programs where the original goals were no longer being met. In the 1977 annual report on this continuing program it was stated that for project-type activities, the following certain basic steps are important:
the establishment of objectives for the project and for each component;
the selection of projects to be undertaken in light of priorities, objectives and
available resources;
the development of plans and cost estimates for each project; the establishment of suitable means for regularly monitoring performance in key areas such as actual-to-estimated costs, actual-to-estimated schedule of completions and actual-to-planned results for each project; the review or evaluation of results after each project is completed.
That 1977 report goes on as follows:
It is essential that performance measurement be considered an inherent and indispensable part of the program management process, since it provides the feedback that all managers need to control program operations and to render a proper accounting for the public funds entrusted to them.
The regular monitoring of the ongoing performance of programs is an essential element in the government management process, but it is not the whole story. It is necessary to subject programs to periodic, objective evaluations with a view to:
changing and improving the ways in which programs are operated;
clarifying program objectives;
reducing or eliminating programs, or aspects of programs, which have become
redundant or of a low priority;
identifying programs, or aspects of programs, which may have increased in
relative priority.
Treasury Board has recently approved a policy requiring departments and agencies to conduct such evaluation of programs, with the results to be com-[Mr. Bdchard.)
municated directly to deputy heads of departments and heads of agencies and other appropriate levels of management.
In addition, the Treasury Board secretariat is actively encouraging departments to undertake A-Base reviews. These are internal reviews of the basic programs. The advantage of this system is that it is flexible and selective, overcoming the very serious problem of universality. This program does not, at the present time, provide for any parliamentary involvement but it does indicate the high priority given by the government to evaluation of its programs.
There are plans under way, as was indicated in the recent Speech from the Throne, for parliamentary involvement in program reviews. The government committed itself to providing members with an opportunity to become directly involved in the review process. Naturally, any review-and this includes sunset legislation-of federal programs would be restricted to those over which the federal government has total and exclusive control.
When you are examining federal government expenditures it must be recognized that only $14.3 billion spending estimates of $48.3 billion for 1978-79 are for the direct operations of the federal government. The biggest part of total spending-well over $20 billion-is in transfer payments to individuals and the provinces. Sunset legislation as now proposed could not touch these programs that cross jurisdictional boundaries. That would immediately diffuse any effectiveness that it may have had to offer.
So, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the government does have control mechanisms in place. It is awaiting additional information and recommendations from a royal commission. Sunset legislation hasn't been an unqualified success in other jurisdictions. For all these reasons, and more, I cannot support this legislation.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

['Yes, Mr. Speaker. I will be in touch. In the event that any party in the House finds it difficult to deal with the bill, I will reconsider whether we should proceed with it on Monday.']
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek the consent of the House to go back to that portion of the daily routine of business dealing with introduction of bills, and to seek the consent of the House to waive the required notice so that I can have introduced a bill to conserve the supplies of energy within Canada during periods of national emergency caused by shortages or market disturbances affecting the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have been patiently waiting for the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) to bring in this bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So have we, Mr. Speaker. We are happy to consent to the introduction and
February 16, 1979

first reading of this bill. When that has been done, perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) will indicate whether it is his intention to call it for the second reading debate on Monday.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is unanimous consent given?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



Allan Joseph MacEachen: for leave to introduce Bill C-42, to provide a means to conserve the supplies of energy within Canada during periods of national emergency caused by shortages or market disturbances affecting the national security and welfare and the economic stability of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister could indicate when the bill is to be debated at second reading.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I take it for granted we will deal with the bill on Monday. It may be that on Monday the parties will not be ready. However, I have asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) to be available to deal with the bill on Monday. That is my expectation. We might have a word on Monday morning to see if things are on schedule so that we can deal with it, but that is the plan at the present time.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The Deputy Prime Minister is suggesting that he will be having a House leader's meeting on Monday morning to see if this is agreeable on all sides, whether we can have the debate starting at three o'clock on Monday.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I will be in touch. In the event that any party in the House finds it difficult to deal with the bill, I will reconsider whether we should proceed with it on Monday.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Forrestall that Bill C-214, to establish a sunset law for
Sunset Laws
Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-214 with some trepidation. Perhaps there is no issue in the forefront of the minds of Canadians concerned about the growth and size of government and the responsibilities that governments have taken on, more au courant today, than the issue of sunset laws, some simple way to bring under control the operation of governments at all levels in Canada.
I believe the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) is sincerely one of those wishing to express, through the use of private members' hour and this bill, that he wants a development to come which will effect a better review of government.
I very much appreciate the comments of my friend the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard), a few moments ago. I might not be as generous as he in saying that all of the current structures are completely efficient and that we cannot improve upon them. However, even in the tone of his speech and knowing this member as a wise man, he will agree that we always want to improve. I agreed with him that we cannot find this bill, its wording and rather all-encompassing nature, to be the answer. On the surface this legislation appears to embody a good idea, one that has merit in practice, and certainly one that has appeal to the general public. As I said, that is why I have some trepidation. However, after you scratch through the shiny surface, the effects of this legislation are not nearly as desirable. In fact it is shot through with potential problems and, in the few minutes available to me, I would like to draw hon. members' attention to a few of the shortcomings.
In the review process leading to the dissolution or continuation of a government organization, the proposed legislation sets out some key bases that must be touched in considering the future of an organization. These include internal and external assessments on the continuing value of the organization. One of the principal problems that is readily apparent is that any organization subject to the proposed sunset legislation would be vulnerable to the influence of pressure groups. The existence of these various groups that promote or oppose certain government activities is, of course, a good and necessary part of a democratic society.
In fact increasingly in Canada we are finding more and more organized lobbies, groups representing various industries and various sectors of society organizing themselves to lobby the government. That is a good exercise, although I have some personal concern that we might, as the Americans have already done before, formalize the relationship of these lobby groups with governments and members of parliament. The danger I see here, however, is that well-orchestrated and finely tuned campaigns by wealthy or well-funded pressure groups could unduly influence the decision-making process.
An organization which serves a segment of the population well may not have the kind of polished support that many pressure groups can mount. What safeguards are built into this

February 16, 1979
Sunset Laws
proposal to protect the right of those ill-equipped to protect their own? I do not see any in the legislation, Mr. Speaker.
We could have a situation where a pressure group, campaigning for its own, narrow self-interest, could force the continuation-or the cancellation, depending on the circumstances-of a program that does not have broad support within the community. The results could be detrimental to a large number of Canadians.
As well, Mr. Speaker, the review process is tailor-made for reliving battles won or lost in earlier legislative skirmishes. This possibility becomes particularly likely in periods of minority government where individuals or parties could resurrect issues long resolved. Think of some of the legislation that has been passed in this House in recent years, legislation that was long fought and took up many weeks of the time of the House. I am sure some members on the opposite side are proud because they forced reforms and amendments in order finally to have their support or not have them further delay it. When you imagine that under this proposed legislation everything would have to come up for review at a regular time, how completely damaging it would be to the process and how frustrating to the public and to us in trying to carry out our job.
In this respect, what concerns me most is that it is much easier to terminate a program than to start one. It's much easier to delay a project than to speed it on its way. You can readily see, Mr. Speaker, how the procedures proposed in this legislation could lead to endless political haggling and a very unproductive government organization.
One might ask why would it be unproductive? During the entire period that its future is in jeopardy, an organization's effectiveness would be impaired. Projects or activities couldn't be undertaken because there would be no assurance that they could be completed. Good staff, faced with the prospect of unemployment should the organization be dissolved, would tend to seek alternative employment, creating both a staffing and a morale problem. Constant uncertainty would influence every decision and every undertaking.
The whole review process would also create major and serious problems for hon. members themselves, because to avoid criticism of bias or discrimination all programs would have to be treated in an equal manner.
Each decision to continue or to terminate a program is extremely important; this means, then, that every program would require an exhaustive and painstaking review by hon. members. The immediate effect would be a tremendous addition to the parliamentary workload. Members who already are pressed to meet their diverse responsibilities as elected representatives would suddenly find themselves with a whole new onerous workload. And the responsibility to participate actively in each review could not easily be sloughed off. Each decision would be simply too important.
The proposal would force us to bring back a number of issues which were extremely controversial and, when they

resurfaced, all of us would have to consider seriously participating in the discussions surrounding those reviews in order to protect ourselves in the light of the stands we took earlier with regard to the legislation originally.
There is no question that parliament's workload would rise dramatically and could easily reach the point at which the legislative process would be impeded by the review of organizations whose mandate had expired. The cumulative effect of this process is obvious: the greater the workload, the more superficial the review. Meanwhile the pressure upon us to act responsibly while making such reviews would increase, as would the impact of lobby forces, some of them, perhaps, with a selfish interest with regard to a piece of legislation not broadly understood or of broad appeal, giving them the ability to cause great damage to the intentions of parliament when it earlier passed the legislation.
That, Mr. Speaker, is no reflection on any member of the House but, rather, it is a hard and real fact of life. This factor alone seriously undermines the intended effectiveness of this legislation and is sufficient grounds for me to oppose the bill now before us.
There is another feature of this legislation that is worrisome. It is one that became extremely obvious to me during the expenditure reduction exercise undertaken by this government last summer. You will recall, of course, Mr. Speaker, that many projects and programs were designated for reduction or elimination as a result of the government's need to cut spending.
What was the reaction of Canadians? As I recall, virtually everyone heartily endorsed the principle of reduced government spending. We should have lower taxes. There should be fewer public servants. Of course there should be lower spending. Of course the bureaucracy had become too large. Of course we must be more efficient, there should be fewer public servants. That was the reaction. Then the details became available, and what a hue and cry went up across this land! Everybody was riding his hobby horse. Those who are dedicated and important supporters of the arts campaigned to cut some other program rather than the ones which directly affected them. Those in one affected industry were prepared to sacrifice another in their place, and so on.
The point of this, Mr. Speaker, is that it is virtually impossible to obtain a consensus among Canadians on what the federal government should be doing for them. It is because it is impossible to obtain such a consensus that the House of Commons has such an important function to perform. That is the reality, that is why we are here. After the government has put forward its proposals we, as backbenchers on this side must decide whether we can support it, whether we ought to press for changes in caucus if we believe there ought to be adjustment, or if our constituents press for change and, in turn, the opposition, with their particular interests or in - accordance with their party philosophy, can press for change.
A program or policy that lacks visible appeal is doomed at the outset under this bill before its long-term ramifications can even be considered. I am afraid that too often we, as Canadi-
February 16, 1979

ans, are a basically selfish people and that we only look at measures which have the capacity to affect us directly. What chance of survival would some of our environmental programs have had, for example, had they been subject to sunset legislation? Under the economic crunch of the last year or two many good programs brought in a decade ago might have fallen by the wayside.
I am sympathetic to the concept of this legislation. It is not new and it is not without redeeming qualities. I believe, however, that it requires more research to determine the benefits and the liabilities, to judge the effects on worth-while programs now in place, and to evaluate whether this is the best approach to dealing with the problem of programs that have outlived their usefulness.
In point of fact, some of the mechanisms to deal with these very questions are already in place. The government, through the expanded role of the Auditor General and through the work of the Comptroller General, has procedures that can be used to measure the effectiveness of various programs. And this government has a reasonably good history of phasing out programs that have outlived their effectiveness or replacing them with new ones that more directly meet the needs of Canadians.
Some recent examples come readily to mind. The AntiInflation Board is being wrapped up, with the continuing part of its program going to another agency where fewer people with a different mandate can do the job. The Neighborhood Improvement Program and the Bank Act are examples where termination was an integral part of the over-all plans. Further, there was a reiteration in the Speech from the Throne of the government's intention to ensure that a close watch on its myriad projects was being kept and to transfer certain programs to the private sector where appropriate. The government also made a commitment to provide parliament with the opportunity to review evaluations of major programs which ensures that hon. members have an on-going opportunity to be part of a review process.
But this is on a selective basis. There isn't the pressure to which I alluded earlier where every program would have to be reviewed. Parliament can build its review into the continuing work of hon. members, filling the dual need for selectivity and for making the review process a viable opportunity.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I see an admitted need for an orderly, systematic review of government programs. There are
Sunset Laws
some programs which have outlived or will outlive their effectiveness. However, the government has procedures to ferret out those programs whose effectiveness is open to question, and it has procedures for eliminating those no longer necessary.
I believe members of parliament themselves have, as a major function, the task of directing attention to government programs which they believe need to be removed or improved. The bill identifies a genuine problem. Many of us share the concerns of the hon. member who has brought this measure forward, but I am afraid that a general application of the sunset principle would be too all-embracing. If I might play a little with the word "sunset", I am afraid this kind of a sunset law may indeed lead to a nightmare.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say at the outset that in putting forward this bill the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) is certainly responding to a deeply held belief among the public, which is that governments should do more and be less. There is concern about the inflationary effects of over-regulation and that the heavy hand of government might limit enterprise and innovation, but while I am sympathetic to the hon. member's wish for greater efficiency and more care about the expenditure of tax dollars, I share the concerns which have been expressed by my colleagues, the hon. member for Bona-venture-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) and the hon. member for York West (Mr. Fleming), about the particular method proposed.
There is a lack of flexibility because sunset legislation requires that every program and every department be reviewed on specific dates and times, even if everyone agrees that they are operating effectively, and the more programs which have to be reviewed, the less likely it is that there will be in-depth examinations.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, February 19, 1979